> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > Yeah. If we're going to do this at all, and I'm not convinced it's > > worth the work, I think it's definitely good to support a variant > > where we specify exactly the things that will be passed to exec(). > > There's just too many ways to accidentally shoot yourself in the foot > > otherwise. If we want to have an option that lets people shoot > > themselves in the foot, that's fine. But I think we'd be smart not to > > make that the only option. > > [ shrug... ] Once again, that will turn this from a ten-line patch > into hundreds of lines (and some more, different, hundreds of lines > for Windows I bet), with a corresponding growth in the opportunities > for bugs, for a benefit that's at best debatable. > > The biggest problem this patch has had from the very beginning is > overdesign, and this is more of the same. Let's please just define the > feature as "popen, not fopen, the given string" and have done. You can > put all the warning verbiage you want in the documentation. (But note > that the server-side version would be superuser-only in any flavor of > the feature.) Agreed. I'll reimplement the feature using the PROGRAM keyword: > COPY TABLE FROM PROGRAM 'command line'; > COPY TABLE TO PROGRAM 'command line'; Sorry for the late response. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
