Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Well, I think the objection was that it would slow COPY down to have to
> go though the executor in the copy-as-source scenario. But maybe that
> would happen anyway, and maybe we don't care, we'd just accept that it
> wouldn't be nearly as fast as a raw copy.
I haven't heard complaints about the COPY (query) syntax, which is
the same thing in the opposite direction. You can't expect that
flexibility costs zero.
regards, tom lane