Re: Add new COPY option REJECT_LIMIT

From: torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com, 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 12:58:51
Message-ID: 98559893e4475fba60c2130a2178a84b@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2024-10-08 18:39, Fujii Masao wrote:
> 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.

Thanks a lot!

>
>
>> 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?

You are right.

--
Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA Group Corporation

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2024-10-08 13:01:47 Re: Inconsistent RestrictInfo serial numbers
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2024-10-08 12:42:48 Re: May be BUG. Periodic burst growth of the checkpoint_req counter on replica.