Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features)

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 8:57 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 9:49 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >> On the other hand, SAVE_ERROR_TO takes 'error' or 'none', which
> > >> indicate "immediately error out" and 'just ignore the failure'
> > >> respectively, but these options hardly seem to denote a 'location',
> > >> and appear more like an 'action'. I somewhat suspect that this
> > >> parameter name intially conceived with the assupmtion that it would
> > >> take file names or similar parameters. I'm not sure if others will
> > >> agree, but I think the parameter name might not be the best
> > >> choice. For instance, considering the addition of the third value
> > >> 'log', something like on_error_action (error, ignore, log) would be
> > >> more intuitively understandable. What do you think?
> >
> > > Probably, but I'm not sure about that. The name SAVE_ERROR_TO assumes
> > > the next word will be location, not action. With some stretch we can
> > > assume 'error' to be location. I think it would be even more stretchy
> > > to think that SAVE_ERROR_TO is followed by action.
> >
> > The other problem with this terminology is that with 'none', what it
> > is doing is the exact opposite of "saving" the errors. I agree we
> > need a better name.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > Kyotaro-san's suggestion isn't bad, though I might shorten it to
> > error_action {error|ignore|log} (or perhaps "stop" instead of "error")?
> > You will need a separate parameter anyway to specify the destination
> > of "log", unless "none" became an illegal table name when I wasn't
> > looking. I don't buy that one parameter that has some special values
> > while other values could be names will be a good design. Moreover,
> > what if we want to support (say) log-to-file along with log-to-table?
> > Trying to distinguish a file name from a table name without any other
> > context seems impossible.
>
> I've been thinking we can add more values to this option to log errors
> not only to the server logs but also to the error table (not sure
> details but I imagined an error table is created for each table on
> error), without an additional option for the destination name. The
> values would be like error_action {error|ignore|save-logs|save-table}.
>

another idea:
on_error {error|ignore|other_future_option}
if not specified then by default ERROR.
You can also specify ERROR or IGNORE for now.

I agree, the parameter "error_action" is better than "location".