On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:34 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > There are clear differences from the earlier proposal. My sole > > motivation is to skip multiple headers, and I don't believe a feature > > for skipping footers is necessary. To be clear, I think it's best to > > simply extend the current HEADER option. > > Sounds ok to me.
Thank you. > > Regarding the concern about adding ETL-like functionality, this > > feature is already implemented in other RDBMSs, which is why I believe > > it is also necessary for PostgreSQL. > > > > Honestly, I haven't implemented it yet, so I'm not sure about the > > performance. However, I don't expect it to be significantly different > > from the current HEADER option that skips a single line. > > So it seems better for you to implement the patch at first and then > check the performance overhead etc if necessary. Thank you for your advice. I will create a patch. -- Best regards, Shinya Kato NTT OSS Center On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:34 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > > > On 2025/06/10 9:43, Shinya Kato wrote: > >>> However, a similar proposal was made earlier [1], and seemingly > >>> some hackers weren't in favor of it. It's probably worth reading > >>> that thread to understand the previous concerns. > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://postgr.es/m/calay4q8ngsxp0p5uf56vn-md7rewqzp5k6ps1cgum26x4fs...@mail.gmail.com > >> > >> Oh, I missed it. I will check it soon. > > > > I read it. > > > > There are clear differences from the earlier proposal. My sole > > motivation is to skip multiple headers, and I don't believe a feature > > for skipping footers is necessary. To be clear, I think it's best to > > simply extend the current HEADER option. > > Sounds ok to me. > > > > Regarding the concern about adding ETL-like functionality, this > > feature is already implemented in other RDBMSs, which is why I believe > > it is also necessary for PostgreSQL. > > > > Honestly, I haven't implemented it yet, so I'm not sure about the > > performance. However, I don't expect it to be significantly different > > from the current HEADER option that skips a single line. > > So it seems better for you to implement the patch at first and then > check the performance overhead etc if necessary. > > Regards, > > -- > Fujii Masao > NTT DATA Japan Corporation > -- Best regards, Shinya Kato NTT OSS Center
