Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote: > Andrew Dunstan írta: > >Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>Böszörményi Zoltán wrote: > >> > >>>what's the problem with COPY view TO, other than you don't like it? :-) > >> > >>The problem is that it required a ugly piece of code. Not supporting it > >>means we can keep the code nice. The previous discussion led to this > >>conclusion anyway so I don't know why we are debating it again. > > > >What is so ugly about it? I haven't looked at the code, but I am > >curious to know.
It used a "SELECT * FROM %s" string that was passed back to the parser. > >I also don't recall the consensus being quite so clear cut. I guess > >there is a case for saying that if it's not allowed then you know that > >"COPY relname TO" is going to be fast. But, code aesthetics aside, the > >reasons for disallowing it seem a bit thin, to me. > > I would say the timing difference between > "COPY table TO" and "COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO" > was noise, so it's not even faster. Remember that we were talking about supporting views, not tables. And if a view uses a slow query then you are in immediate danger of having a slow COPY. This may not be a problem but it needs to be discussed and an agreement must be reached before introducing such a change (and not during feature freeze). > And an updatable VIEW *may* allow COPY view FROM... May I remind you that we've been in feature freeze for four weeks already? Now it's *not* the time to be drooling over cool features that would be nice to have. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
