From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com, vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, lena(dot)ribackina(at)yandex(dot)ru, dam(dot)bel07(at)gmail(dot)com, zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, daniel(at)yesql(dot)se, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, anisimow(dot)d(at)gmail(dot)com, HukuToc(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru |
Subject: | Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features) |
Date: | 2024-01-17 21:06:56 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfduYDAmgccWM--A2md-zS-6zP_H41-xtUskV_daBfpAk_Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 9:49 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> At Wed, 17 Jan 2024 14:38:54 +0900, torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote in
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for applying!
> >
> > > + errmsg_plural("%zd row were skipped due to data type
> > > incompatibility",
> >
> > Sorry, I just noticed it, but 'were' should be 'was' here?
> >
> > >> BTW I'm thinking we should add a column to pg_stat_progress_copy that
> > >> counts soft errors. I'll suggest this in another thread.
> > > Please do!
> >
> > I've started it here:
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d12fd8c99adcae2744212cb23feff6ed@oss.nttdata.com
>
> Switching topics, this commit (9e2d870119) adds the following help message:
>
>
> > "COPY { %s [ ( %s [, ...] ) ] | ( %s ) }\n"
> > " TO { '%s' | PROGRAM '%s' | STDOUT }\n"
> > ...
> > " SAVE_ERROR_TO '%s'\n"
> > ...
> > _("location"),
>
> 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. Probably, we can
replace SAVE_ERROR_TO with another name which could be naturally
followed by action, but I don't have something appropriate in mind.
However, I'm not native english speaker and certainly could miss
something.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-01-17 21:08:39 | Re: Assertion failure with epoch when replaying standby records for 2PC |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-01-17 21:01:59 | Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features) |