Alon Goldshuv wrote:
> >I've been following this thread, and I'm a little confused. Could you
> possibly clarify what you mean, by providing a couple of lines of input
> as it would be formatted with escape processing turned off - containing
> a text field with an embedded newline and tab and a null field.
>
>
> yeah, this is all a bit confusing, but I *hope* I can clarify things
> here as I think I got a better understanding now.
The basic problem with this thread is that it started with _conclusions_
(we need a LOAD DATA command, escapes are broken), and not with
statements of fact (we need another way of specifying escapes, we have
performance improvements).
Any discussion that starts with conclusions instead of facts is bound to
have this problem, and it often happens when a group discusses among
themselves, outside the community, and appears with the conclusions,
thinking they are helping us by not going into the details. As you can
see, lack of facts actually hampers the discussion.
What has me particularly concerned is someone saying that loading C:\TMP
must be broken, and not understanding that the doubling of escapes is a
major requirement to have data loaded reliably. Now, you can argue that
a different escape should be possible, or that some other escape syntax
could be used, but the existing mechanism is clearly 100% reliable when
used properly and not broken.
A quick email asking why C:\TMP doesn't load in properly would have
yielded a much clearer conversation about why escaping is required in
our current system, and the other options that should be explored.
Saying escapes are broken and here is the fix really didn't get very
far.
I recommend you just start a new thread, with a new topic, and head in
the _facts_ direction.
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19073
