public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
Cc: Kirill Reshke <[email protected]>
Cc: jian he <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: in BeginCopyTo make materialized view using COPY TO instead of COPY (query).
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:56:03 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwbD775kSHFfyF3shu+XMTX=3SEH+_JYLOWvrPo3y5dK-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACJufxHVxnyRYy67hiPePNCPwVBMzhTQ6FaL9_Te5On9udG=yg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxGvy6QNMwZ5xd=L31F+4Rr6aXCASeMFyLZS+TVssK5+vA@mail.gmail.com>
<CACJufxGZgh4oNV_8TqBwRoL+WFB2n3EqN97aMcuEmjuG+qm0qw@mail.gmail.com>
<CACJufxHnyH4Zv+RtOABn8-1PjxkKch9R58dGhr+hCnV0LmNxSQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALdSSPgsgC_CGDjTyzu=1FAbuavTRsGFDnnm7ufGuWcd29QUHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CACJufxE35HxSMqG6su0txZwOLpbnBsDBav5eigxt6L8Nk8bJwQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALdSSPi3Gb=fi0ZCoJhAp3HQYKJmiCShcX4xMcUBSL0s5byBXQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKFQuwbs61rxxCUVhECLSq4Xrz9s54dD2TzhX58d7+6WcC8dpA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAKFQuwbD775kSHFfyF3shu+XMTX=3SEH+_JYLOWvrPo3y5dK-w@mail.gmail.com>
On 2025-03-29 Sa 12:17 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 9:06 AM Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> On 2025-03-29 Sa 10:40 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 29, 2025, Kirill Reshke
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 at 09:47, jian he
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > will use {table_beginscan, table_scan_getnextslot,
>> table_endscan}
>> > to output the data.
>> > but views don't have storage, table_beginscan mechanism
>> won't work.
>> >
>> > so i don't think this is possible for view.
>>
>> Well... So you are saying that let us have inconsistent features
>> because of how things are implemented in core... I don't sure I'm
>> buying that, but whatever, let's hear some other voices from the
>> community. My argument is that while we are working on it,
>> perhaps we
>> should revise certain implementation specifics along the way.
>> However,
>> this is merely my opinion on the matter.
>>
>>
>> At present copy {table} to only exists to support pg_dump. It
>> is not marketed as a general purpose export facility.
>
>
> *ahem*
>
>
> What is your evidence for that proposition? If this were true we
> would not support CSV mode, which pg_dump does not use. It might
> have limitations, but its use goes far beyond just pg_dump, both
> in theory and practice.
>
>
>
>
> "copy {subquery} to" is a general-purpose exporter that makes use of
> those additional features. Sure, they also work for the narrowed case
> of "copy {relation/table} to" but I make my claim on the very fact
> that {relation} cannot be stuff like foreign tables or partitioned
> tables, which pg_dump has no need to target.
>
>
I don't believe that the premise supports the conclusion.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
view thread (29+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: in BeginCopyTo make materialized view using COPY TO instead of COPY (query).
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox