Greg Smith wrote:
The attached patch fixes all the issues I found in the original
version of this code and completes the review I wanted to do. Someone
else will need to take this from here. As I already mentioned, I
can't comment on the quality of the piping implementation used to add
thi
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
Since the rotation size feature causes other issues anyway
that make importing more complicated, documenting the issue seemed
sufficient.
What are the other issues? I'm not happy about producing files with split
lines.
Just that
Greg Smith wrote:
The attached patch fixes all the issues I found in the original
version of this code and completes the review I wanted to do. Someone
else will need to take this from here. As I already mentioned, I
can't comment on the quality of the piping implementation used to add
thi
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
---
Gr
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I've had a preference for INSERT from the beginning here that this
reinforces.
COPY is our standard bulk insert mechanism. I think arguing against it would
be a very hard sell.
Let me say my final peace on this subject...if I considered this data to
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Does the format not include the per-process line number?
It does not, and I never noticed that under the prefix
possibilities---never seemed import before! The combination of
timestamp/pid/line (%t %p %l) looks like a useful and unique key here, so
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The most fundamental issue I have with the interface is that using COPY
> makes it difficult to put any unique index on the resulting table. I like
> to have a unique index on my imported log table because it rejects the
> dupe records if you accidentally
Greg Smith wrote:
I got a chance to review this patch over the weekend. Basic API seems
good, met all my requirements, no surprises with how the GUC variable
controlled the feature.
The most fundamental issue I have with the interface is that using
COPY makes it difficult to put any unique
I got a chance to review this patch over the weekend. Basic API seems
good, met all my requirements, no surprises with how the GUC variable
controlled the feature.
The most fundamental issue I have with the interface is that using COPY
makes it difficult to put any unique index on the resulti
