2009/11/25 Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com>: > On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 06:35 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> I believe so using an "internal" minimalize necessary changes in COPY >> implementation. Using a funcapi needs more work inside COPY - you >> have to take some functionality from COPY to stream functions. >> Probably the most slow operations is parsing - calling a input >> functions. This is called once every where. Second slow operation is >> reading from network - it is same. So I don't see too much reasons, >> why non internal implementation have to be significant slower than >> your actual implementation. I am sure, so it needs more work. > > I apologize, but I don't understand what you're saying. Can you please > restate with some examples? > > It seems like you're advocating that we move records from a table into a > function using COPY. But that's not what COPY normally does: COPY > normally translates records to bytes or bytes to records. > > Moving records from a table to a function can be done with: > SELECT myfunc(mytable) FROM mytable; > already. The only problem is if you want initialization/destruction. But > I'm not convinced that COPY is the best tool to provide that. > > Moving records from a function to a table can be done with: > INSERT INTO mytable SELECT * FROM myfunc(); > And that already works fine.
It works, but COPY FROM myfunc() should be significantly faster. You can skip tuple store. Pavel > > So what use case are you concerned about? > > Regards, > Jeff Davis > > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
