On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:34:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > Yes, and GUCs allow users to retrofit this approach onto existing
> > infrastructure without changing their COPY commands. So there's
> > advantages and disadvantages. My question was really for the -hackers
> > at large: is this the design we want? Or, more directly, is the GUC
> > approach anathema to anyone?
>
> Half a dozen interrelated GUCs to control a single command fairly
> screams "bad design" to me; especially the ones that specifically bear
> on the command semantics, rather than being performance settings that
> you could reasonably have system-wide defaults for. Could we please
> look at doing it via COPY options instead?
>
> It might be time to switch COPY over to a more easily extensible
> option syntax, such as we just adopted for EXPLAIN.
+1 :)
Cheers,
David (still working on that windowing bug)
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
