Re: COPY enhancements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: COPY enhancements
Date
Msg-id 9109.1254925748@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: COPY enhancements  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: COPY enhancements  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
>> If you prefer to postpone the auto-partitioning to the next commit 
>> fest, I can strip it from the current patch and re-submit it for the 
>> next fest (but it's just 2 isolated methods really easy to review).

> I certainly think this should be separated out. In general it is not a 
> good idea to roll distinct features together. It complicates both the 
> reviewing process and the discussion.

I think though that Greg was suggesting that we need some more thought
about the overall road map.  Agglomerating "independent" features onto
COPY one at a time is going to lead to a mess, unless they fit into an
overall design plan.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1
Next
From: Gnanam
Date:
Subject: Deadlock error in INSERT statements