On 14 November 2012 16:20, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Simon Riggs escribió: >>> On 14 November 2012 15:09, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Here, progname for COPY IN is the user-supplied program that takes >>>> filename as >>>> its argument and that writes on standard output. > >>> I think we should be using FDWs/SRFs here, not inventing new >>> syntax/architectures for executing external code, so -1 from me. > >> Hmm, but then you are forced to write C code, whereas the "external >> program" proposal could have you writing a only shell script instead. > > I disagree with Simon's objection also, because neither reading from > nor writing to an external program is likely to fit the model of > reading/updating a table very well. For instance, there's no good > reason to suppose that reading twice will give the same results. So > force-fitting this usage into the FDW model is not going to work well. > > Nor do I really see the argument why a "pipe_fdw" module is cleaner > than a "COPY TO/FROM pipe" feature.
Perhaps not cleaner, but we do need COPY table FROM (SELECT * FROM foo) So we will then have both ways. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
