On 07/02/2015 10:07 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-07-02 16:02 GMT+02:00 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net
<mailto:and...@dunslane.net>>:
On 07/02/2015 09:43 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 2 July 2015 at 14:02, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net
<mailto:and...@dunslane.net> <mailto:and...@dunslane.net
<mailto:and...@dunslane.net>>> wrote:
Please don't top-post on the PostgreSQL lists. You've been
around
here long enough to know that bottom posting is our custom.
I posted a patch for this in 2013 at
<http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50f2fa92.9040...@dunslane.net>
but it can apply to a SELECT, and doesn't need COPY.
Nobody seemed
very interested, so I dropped it. Apparently people now want
something along these lines, which is good.
It's a shame that both solutions are restricted to either COPY
or psql.
Both of those are working on suggestions from Tom, so there is
no history of preference there.
Can we have both please, gentlemen?
If we implemented Andrew's solution, how would we request it
in a COPY statement? Seems like we would want the RAW format
keyword anyway.
What's the use case? My original motivation was that I had a
function that returned a bytea (it was a PDF in fact) that I
wanted to be able to write to a file. Of course, this is easy
enough to do with a client library like perl's DBD::Pg, but it
seems sad to have to resort to that for something so simple.
My original suggestion
(<http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4ea1b83b.2050...@pgexperts.com>)
was to invent a \bcopy command.
I don't have a problem in building in a RAW mode for copy, but
we'll still need to teach psql how to deal with it.
It can be used from psql without any problems.
In fact your patch will not work with psql's \copy nor to stdout at all,
unless I'm misreading it:
- if (cstate->binary)
+ if (cstate->binary || cstate->raw)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
errmsg("COPY BINARY is not supported to stdout or from
stdin")));
So it looks like you're only supporting this where the server is writing
to a file. That's horribly narrow, and certainly doesn't meet my
original need.
Does the COPY line protocol even support binary data? If not, we're dead
in the water here from the psql POV. Because my patch doesn't use the
COPY protocol it doesn't have this problem.
Perhaps we should do both, although I'm not sure I understand the use
case for the COPY solution.
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
