The article doesn't claim that CSV is superior, though. It only mentions CSV once, as a workaround for the problem that relational databases mostly don't support importing from Parquet directly.
It does rather feel like at least that part of the rant would be better addressed by adding such support, though. If Parquet is already a de facto standard in the industry, I'm sure there already are Postgres extensions that add such support; how hard would it be to convince the maintainers to take the best-written one and use it to add support directly to core Postgres, just as it already has for CSV and JSON?
It does rather feel like at least that part of the rant would be better addressed by adding such support, though. If Parquet is already a de facto standard in the industry, I'm sure there already are Postgres extensions that add such support; how hard would it be to convince the maintainers to take the best-written one and use it to add support directly to core Postgres, just as it already has for CSV and JSON?