From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jim Buttafuoco <jim(at)buttafuoco(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates? |
Date: | 2002-01-02 23:40:20 |
Message-ID: | 200201022340.g02NeKd12500@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I think we can allow something like:
> > COPY FROM '/tmp/x' WITH ERRORS 2
>
> > Yes, I realize we need subtransactions or something, but we should add
> > it to the TODO list if it is a valid request, right?
>
> Well, I don't like that particular API in any case. Why would I think
> that 2 errors are okay and 3 are not, if I'm loading a
> many-thousand-line COPY file? Wouldn't it matter *what* the errors
I threw the count idea in as a possible compromise. :-)
> are, at least as much as how many there are? "Discard duplicate rows"
> is one thing, but "ignore bogus data" (eg, unrecognizable timestamps)
> is not the same animal at all.
Yes, when we have error codes, it would be nice to specify certain
errors to ignore.
> As someone already remarked, the correct, useful form of such a feature
> is to echo the rejected lines to some sort of output file that I can
> look at afterwards. How many errors there are is not the issue.
How about for TODO:
* Allow COPY to report error lines and continue; requires
nested transactions; optionally allow error codes to be specified
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-03 00:02:51 | Re: bug in join? |
Previous Message | Laurette Cisneros | 2002-01-02 23:32:43 | Re: bug in join? |