Neil,
Right; I really dislike the idea of having two separate code paths for
COPY. When you say this approach is "temporary", are you suggesting that
you intend to reimplement your changes as improvements/replacements of
the existing COPY code path rather than as a parallel code path?
====
My thoughts were -- see how the responses are, and if people think that this is a better way to go than replace the
COPYparsing logic to the new one. The whole escaping discussion that goes on is something else, escapes could be
implementedin either way, but the important thing I am trying to show is that there is a much faster way to parse the
datainstead of doing a char-by-char petch-examine-load.
> As a part of submitting this patch I also presented an argument for a use of
> a LOAD DATA command (in the NOLOGGING option thread). The points I made
> there are closely related to this message. There may be a valid argument
> that most of the points I raised could be implemented in the COPY code
> instead of a LOAD DATA command
I'm definitely not keen to see a new "LOAD DATA" command.
====
It seems that most people don't :-) I can see valid arguments to both having it and not having it.
> But that may not be a good idea for some and will also be problematic
> for backwards compatiability.
In what way would the performance improvements to COPY be backward
incompatible with the existing COPY behaviour?
====
That comment was in respect to the escape logic. You can regard it as irrelevant for now as long as the escape
discussiongoes on in parallel.
Alon.
-Neil
