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).
COPY relname TO meant tables _and_ views to me.
My previous tsting showed no difference between
COPY table TO and COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO.
Similarly a slow query defined in the view should show
no difference between COPY view TO and
COPY (SELECT * FROM view) TO.
The difference is that we are giving a very clear distinction between a
table and a view. If we don't support the view in the direct COPY, but
instead insist that it be passed via a SELECT query, then the user will
be aware that it may be slow.
what kind of clever customers do you have in the US? ;) i would never
say something like that here :).
i see your point and i think it is not a too bad idea. at least some
folks might see that there is no voodoo going on ...
"relname" at this point may mean anything -- are you supporting
sequences and toast tables as well?
good point ...
It's ugly because you are forcing the system to parse something that
was already parsed.
definitely an argument for dropping the view stuff ...
On the other hand I don't see why you are arguing in favor of a useless
feature whose coding is dubious; you can have _the same thing_ with nice
code and no discussion.
what are you referring to?
hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde & Schönig GmbH
Schöngrabern 134; A-2020 Hollabrunn
Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340
www.postgresql.at, www.cybertec.at
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
