Tom, this is fixed, right?
I've just noticed that COPY BINARY is pretty thoroughly broken by TOAST,
because what it does is to dump out verbatim the bytes making up each
tuple of the relation. In the case of a moved-off value, you'll get
the toast reference, which is not going to be too
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom, this is fixed, right?
Yes.
regards, tom lane
Its handling of nulls is bizarre, too. I'm thinking this might be a
good time to abandon backwards compatibility and switch to a format
that's a little easier to read and write. Does anyone have an opinion
pro or con about that?
BINARY COPY scared the bejeezus out of me, anyone using
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Its handling of nulls is bizarre, too. I'm thinking this might be a
good time to abandon backwards compatibility and switch to a format
that's a little easier to read and write. Does anyone have an opinion
pro or con about that?
BINARY COPY scared
Hi,
I would very much like some way of writing binary data to a database.
Copy binary recently broke on me after upgrading to 7.0. I have large
simulation codes and writing lots of floats to the database by
converting them to text first is 1) a real pain, 2) slow and 3) can lead
to
Adriaan Joubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Copy binary recently broke on me after upgrading to 7.0.
I think you're talking about binary copy via the frontend, which has a
different set of problems. To fix that, we need to make some protocol
changes, which would (preferably) also apply to
I've just noticed that COPY BINARY is pretty thoroughly broken by TOAST,
because what it does is to dump out verbatim the bytes making up each
tuple of the relation. In the case of a moved-off value, you'll get
the toast reference, which is not going to be too helpful for reloading
the table
Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would rip it out.
I thought about that too, but was afraid to suggest it ;-)
How many people are actually using COPY BINARY?
regards, tom lane
Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would rip it out.
I thought about that too, but was afraid to suggest it ;-)
How many people are actually using COPY BINARY?
It could be useful if only single scan would be required.
But I have no strong opinion about keeping it.
Vadim
The existing COPY BINARY file format is entirely brain-dead
anyway; for example, it wants the number of tuples to be stored
at the front, which means we have to scan the whole relation an
extra time to get that info. Its handling of nulls is bizarre, too.
I'm thinking this might be a good
* Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001201 14:57] wrote:
Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would rip it out.
I thought about that too, but was afraid to suggest it ;-)
I think you'd agree that you have more fun and important things to
do than to deal with this yucky interface. :)
At 03:05 PM 12/1/00 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
How about adding COPY XML?
(kidding of course about the XML, but it would make postgresql more
buzzword compliant :) )
Hey, we could add a parser and call the module MyXML ...
- Don Baccus, Portland OR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nature photos,
12 matches
Mail list logo
