Josh Berkus <[email protected]> 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.
regards, tom lane
