Your mechanism is clearly safer, but the user is required to clean up `foo.tmp` themselves in case of failure, so it's not really comparable.
83 karma · joined February 7, 2012
Your mechanism is clearly safer, but the user is required to clean up `foo.tmp` themselves in case of failure, so it's not really comparable.
Which means you can't safely use it for arbitrary data (since your records themselves could contain these separators). Most of the time that doesn't matter; sometimes it does.
A friend once suggested that outside of licensing pressure, maintainership is a huge driving force behind open-source contributions: you find something that does almost what you need, then you make the changes you require, and if you get these accepted upstream, they're maintained for you for free, pretty much forever. In many situations, that's far more important than any IP you're trying to conceal.
Not caring about certificate expiration may be a sign of not caring about other, more serious, security issues.
Then let us welcome you with some pedantry! Postgres or PostgreSQL, but never PostGres or--FSM forbid--PostGreSQL.
More seriously,
> fdw looks easy to start, but probably hard to master it.
Yep, like a number of Postgres features, such as user-defined types and user-defined aggregates. It's a great system, and not nearly as stuffy or hard to use as you may have heard.