Alvaro Herrera írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Alvaro Herrera írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Alvaro Herrera írta:
But COPY view (col1, col2, ...) TO may still be
useful even if the COPY (SELECT ...) (col1, col2, ...) TO
is pointless. [1]
Hum, I don't understand what you're saying here -- are you saying that
you can't do something with the first form, that you cannot do with the
Say you have a large often used query.
Would you like to retype it every time
or just create a view? Later you may want to
export only a subset of the fields...

My v8 had the syntax support for

COPY (SELECT ...) (col1, col2, ...) TO
and it was actually working. In your v9
you rewrote the syntax parsing so that
feature was lost in translation.

Interesting.  I didn't realize this was possible -- obviously I didn't
test it (did you have a test for it in the regression tests?  I may have
missed it).  In fact, I deliberately removed the column list from the
grammar, because it can certainly be controlled inside the SELECT, so I
thought there was no reason the support controlling it in the COPY
column list.

Yes, it was even documented. I thought about having
queries stored statically somewhere (not in views) and
being able to use only part of the result.

I don't think it's difficult to put it back.  But this has nothing to do
with COPY view, does it?

No, but it may be confusing seeing
COPY (SELECT ) (col1, col2, ...) TO
instead of COPY (SELECT col1, col2, ...) TO.
With the COPY VIEW (col1, col2, ...) TO syntax
it may be cleaner from the user's point of view.
Together with the changing schemas argument
it gets more and more tempting.

On the other hand I don't see why you are arguing in favor of a useless
feature whose coding is dubious; you can have _the same thing_ with nice
code and no discussion.
Because of [1] and because Mr. Schoenig's arguments
about changing schemas.
Yeah, that argument makes sense to me as well.
So, may I put it back? :-)
Also, can you suggest anything cleaner than
calling raw_parser("SELECT * FROM view")?

I think at this point is someone else's judgement whether you can put it
back or not.  Tom already said that he doesn't object to the feature per
se; no one else seems opposed to the feature per se, in fact.

Now, I don't really see _how_ to do it in nice code, so no, I don't have
any suggestion for you.  You may want to give the pumpkin to Tom so that
he gives the patch the finishing touches (hopefully making it support
the "COPY view" feature as well).

If it were up to me, I'd just commit it as is (feature-wise -- more
thorough review is still needed) and revisit the COPY view stuff in 8.3
if there is demand.

OK, I will put it back as it was in v8
keeping all your other cleanup and
let Bruce and Tom decide.

(BTW, is there anyone as high-ranking as them,
or the "committee" is a duumvirate? :-) )

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to