On Thu, November 26, 2009 2:22 am, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 00:35 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> On Wed, November 25, 2009 3:56 pm, Jeff Davis wrote: >> > >> > I worry that we're getting further away from the original problem. >> Let's >> > allow functions to get the bytes of data from a COPY, like the >> original >> > proposal. I am not sure COPY is the best mechanism to move records >> > around when INSERT ... SELECT already does that. >> > >> >> >> I am not at all sure I think that's a good idea, though. We have >> pg_read_file() for getting raw bytes from files. Building that into COPY >> does not strike me as a good fit. > > I think we're in agreement. All I mean is that the second argument to > COPY should produce/consume bytes and not records. I'm not discussing > the internal implementation at all, only semantics. > > In other words, STDIN is not a source of records, it's a source of > bytes; and likewise for STDOUT. >
Hmm. I can just imagine wanting to do that as a way of running COPY over dblink. Are there other use cases? cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers