On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 16:34 -0700, Alon Goldshuv wrote: > 1) The patch includes 2 parallel parsing code paths. One is the regular COPY > path that we all know, and the other is the improved one that I wrote. This > is only temporary, as there is a lot of code duplication
Right; I really dislike the idea of having two separate code paths for COPY. When you say this approach is "temporary", are you suggesting that you intend to reimplement your changes as improvements/replacements of the existing COPY code path rather than as a parallel code path? > As a part of submitting this patch I also presented an argument for a use of > a LOAD DATA command (in the NOLOGGING option thread). The points I made > there are closely related to this message. There may be a valid argument > that most of the points I raised could be implemented in the COPY code > instead of a LOAD DATA command I'm definitely not keen to see a new "LOAD DATA" command. > But that may not be a good idea for some and will also be problematic > for backwards compatiability. In what way would the performance improvements to COPY be backward incompatible with the existing COPY behaviour? -Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
