On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 07:24:44PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
IIRC this check was added because the check for COPY FROM STDIN had to
added
anyway. Since you left that one in, the patch is fine by me, although I still
don't see a reason for it.
Just less code to maintain. And it's
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
While looking at Fujita Etsuro's patch to allow copy to/from a shell
command, I noticed that the grammar currently allows these:
COPY foo FROM STDOUT
COPY foo TO STDIN
In other words, STDIN and STDOUT can be used completely
On 26.02.2013 18:23, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangashlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
While looking at Fujita Etsuro's patch to allow copy to/from a shell
command, I noticed that the grammar currently allows these:
COPY foo FROM STDOUT
COPY foo TO STDIN
In other words, STDIN and STDOUT
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 26.02.2013 18:23, Tom Lane wrote:
(I assume
the backend will bounce the other cases at some post-grammar stage.)
No. All four combinations of FROM/TO and STDIN/STDOUT are accepted:
Huh. That seems like an odd decision. If we agree that
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
No. All four combinations of FROM/TO and STDIN/STDOUT are accepted:
...
postgres=# copy foo to stdin;
foo
bar
postgres=# copy foo to stdout;
foo
bar
Hm, so STDIN/STDOUT are just noise words and psql uses
On 26.02.2013 18:40, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangashlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 26.02.2013 18:23, Tom Lane wrote:
(I assume
the backend will bounce the other cases at some post-grammar stage.)
No. All four combinations of FROM/TO and STDIN/STDOUT are accepted:
Huh. That seems
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:13:38PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
COPY foo FROM STDOUT
COPY foo TO STDIN
Does this make sense?
Any particular reason for ecpg to check that, while the backend
doesn't care? I think we should just remove those checks from the
ecpg grammar.
IIRC this check
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
Yeah, I'd guess that it was an oversight. But it goes back all the way to
Postgres95, so it's a bit too late to change that.
I don't see why. We've plugged holes like this before and will do so
again in the
On 26.02.2013 18:58, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:13:38PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Any particular reason for ecpg to check that, while the backend
doesn't care? I think we should just remove those checks from the
ecpg grammar.
IIRC this check was added because the
