On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 06:35 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I believe so using an "internal" minimalize necessary changes in COPY
>> implementation. Using a funcapi needs more work inside COPY - you
>> have to take some functionality from COPY to stream functions.
>> Probably the most slow operations is parsing - calling a input
>> functions. This is called once every where. Second slow operation is
>> reading from network - it is same. So I don't see too much reasons,
>> why non internal implementation have to be significant slower than
>> your actual implementation. I am sure, so it needs more work.
>
> I apologize, but I don't understand what you're saying. Can you please
> restate with some examples?
>
> It seems like you're advocating that we move records from a table into a
> function using COPY. But that's not what COPY normally does: COPY
> normally translates records to bytes or bytes to records.
Perhaps what we want is pluggable transformation functions that can
format the row any way that is desired, with the current behavior
being some default. Putting COPY TO FUNCTION as submitted aside, what
about something like this:
COPY foo TO '/tmp/foo' USING postgres_builtin_formatter(csv = true);
This is something completely different than what was submitted, so in
some aspect:
COPY foo TO FUNCTION dblink_send_row USING
postgres_builtin_formatter(binary = true);
Would compose the two features...
(Again, very, very far from a real syntax suggestion)
fdr