On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 22:13 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> My disagreement with the row-by-row approach is more semantics than
> performance. COPY translates records to bytes and vice-versa, and your
> original patch maintains those semantics.
The bytes <-> records conversion is a costly one. Anything we can do to
avoid that in either direction will be worth it. I would regard
performance as being part/most of the reason to support this.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com