From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add new COPY option REJECT_LIMIT |
Date: | 2024-10-08 09:39:54 |
Message-ID: | 501f4433-b820-4d26-b7f0-1ab9ccf393b3@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024/10/07 21:51, torikoshia wrote:
>> While reviewing, I also noticed that the check for
>> "opts_out->binary && opts_out->on_error != COPY_ON_ERROR_STOP"
>> is similarly placed before setting the defaults, which might not
>> be correct. This check should probably be moved as well.
>> Additionally, the comment mentioning "must do these two" should be
>> updated to "must do these three." These changes should be handled
>> in a separate patch.
>
> Agreed and attached 0002 patch.
Thanks for updating the 0001 patch and creating the 0002 patch! I've pushed both.
> Also considering when REJECT_LIMIT is specified to 1, attached patch uses errmsg_plural() instead of errmsg.
I don't think errmsg_plural() is needed here since, when 1 is specified,
"rows" should follow "more than REJECT_LIMIT (1)". No?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nisha Moond | 2024-10-08 09:40:25 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |
Previous Message | Nisha Moond | 2024-10-08 09:39:24 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |