> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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
