Bernard wrote:
> The majority of JDBC users trying to bulk load tables would not want
> to send the data through their connection. This connection is designed
> to send commands and to transfer only as much data as necessary and as
> little as possible.
I don't understand why this is true at all -- for example, our
application currently does bulk INSERTs over a JDBC connection, and
moving to COPY has been an option I looked at in the past. Importing
lots of data from a remote machine is hardly an uncommon case.
> The need is only created by the limitations of the Postgres COPY
> command.
>
> I can't see why a workaround should be developed instead of or before
> fixing the COPY command.
>
> It works in other DB engines.
I guess that other DB engines don't care about unprivileged DB users
reading any file that the backend can access.
-O