Simon Riggs wrote: > I'm not clear from all of those options whether we still need a LOAD > command, based upon other issues/comments raised on this thread. > > However, there are some other arguments for why it might be a good idea > to have a LOAD DATA command separate from COPY. Certainly long term > features would be easier to add with two commands. Trying to maintain > backwards compatibility just because we use COPY seems like an uphill > struggle and is going to mean we have to handle sensible new additions > as options so we don't break existing applications. The most important > one is the lock type held.
Well, we have had a pretty much unmodified COPY format since like the Berkeley days (I added \N and \.). Please tell us exactly what you want do to that requires a format change, and we can talk about it, but showing up with no proof and expecting a new command is the _wrong_ approach. It actually reminds me of the "our company developed it so it must be great" approach, which doesn't work well in the community. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
