From: | zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Damir <dam(dot)bel07(at)gmail(dot)com>, torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, anisimow(dot)d(at)gmail(dot)com, HukuToc(at)gmail(dot)com, Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alena Rybakina <lena(dot)ribackina(at)yandex(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features) |
Date: | 2023-11-09 04:33:34 |
Message-ID: | 878r77mtlt.fsf@163.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>>> On 8 Nov 2023, at 19:18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I think an actually usable feature of this sort would involve
>>> copying all the failed lines to some alternate output medium,
>>> perhaps a second table with a TEXT column to receive the original
>>> data line. (Or maybe an array of text that could receive the
>>> broken-down field values?) Maybe we could dump the message info,
>>> line number, field name etc into additional columns.
>
>> I agree that the errors should be easily visible to the user in some way. The
>> feature is for sure interesting, especially in data warehouse type jobs where
>> dirty data is often ingested.
>
> I agree it's interesting, but we need to get it right the first time.
>
> Here is a very straw-man-level sketch of what I think might work.
> The option to COPY FROM looks something like
>
> ERRORS TO other_table_name (item [, item [, ...]])
>
> where the "items" are keywords identifying the information item
> we will insert into each successive column of the target table.
> This design allows the user to decide which items are of use
> to them. I envision items like
While I'm pretty happy with the overall design, which is 'ERRORS to
other_table_name' specially. I'm a bit confused why do we need to
write the codes for (item [, item [, ...]]), not only because it
requires more coding but also requires user to make more decisions.
will it be anything wrong to make all of them as default?
> LINENO bigint COPY line number, counting from 1
> LINE text raw text of line (after encoding conversion)
> FIELDS text[] separated, de-escaped string fields (the data
> that was or would be fed to input functions)
> FIELD text name of troublesome field, if field-specific
> MESSAGE text error message text
> DETAIL text error message detail, if any
> SQLSTATE text error SQLSTATE code
>
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | torikoshia | 2023-11-09 04:50:34 | Re: Add new option 'all' to pg_stat_reset_shared() |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-11-09 04:23:07 | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |