On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
Everybody in the world is going to want their own little problem to be handled in the fast path. And soon it won't be so fast anymore. I think it is perfectly reasonable to insist that the fast path is only for "clean" data import.
The extra overhead is that when you hit the checks that are already in the code, where the row would normally be rejected, there's a second check as to whether that particular problem is considered OK or not. There won't be any additional overhead for clean imports. As I was pointing out in one of the messages in this thread, all of the expensive things you need are already being done.
As for "everybody in the world" wanting a specific fix for their private problems, I assure that everything I suggested comes up constantly on every legacy data conversion or import job I see. This is not stuff that fits a one-off need, these are things that make it harder for people to adopt PostgreSQL all the time. I wouldn't care about this one bit if these particular issues didn't ruin my day constantly. Consider the fact that we're looking at three samples of people who have either already written a patch in this area or considered writing one showing up just among people on the hackers list. That should be hint as to how common these requests are.
-- * Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
