* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > On 02/15/2011 11:13 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >Think I suggested that at one point. I'm all for doing that on a major > >version change like this one, but I think we already had some concerns > >about that on this thread (Andrew maybe?). > > I could live with it for a release if I thought we had a clear path > ahead, but I think there are some design issues that we need to > think about before we start providing for header lines and variable > formats in CSV logs, particularly w.r.t. log rotation etc. So I'm > slightly nervous about going ahead with this right now.
I believe the suggestion that Robert and I were talking about above was
to just unilatterally change the CSV log file output format to include
current_role. No header lines, no variable output format, etc.
I do think we can make header lines and variable output work, if we can
get agreement on what the semantics should be.
> You don't really make your case any better by continuing this
> argument from years ago. I can tell you from experience that the CSV
> HEADER feature is distinctly useful as it is. If you want to add a
> mode that uses the header line as a column list on import, then make
> that case, and I'll support it in fact, but it's not an alternative
> to having the header ignored, which is a feature I would vigorously
> resist removing.
I'm not really interested in removing it. I guess I have a vain hope
that with arguing I'll convince someone to take up the mantle of
implementing the 'use header' option. :) Not getting much traction
though, so I expect I'll work on it this summer.
> (Incidentally, I think it won't be trivial - the
> COPY code expects to know the columns by the time it opens the
> file).
Thanks for that insight, I'll take a look at how things work and see if
I can come up with a sensible proposal.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
