| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(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, 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: | 2024-01-19 13:27:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdv1EQh9WUnJM5uZvRzP80grdqv69NSVHUu0CUk54dTTxg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 2:37 PM torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks for making the patch!
The patch is pushed! The proposed changes are incorporated excluding this.
> > - /* If SAVE_ERROR_TO is specified, skip rows
> > with soft errors */
> > + /* If ON_ERROR is specified with IGNORE, skip
> > rows with soft errors */
>
> This is correct now, but considering future works which add other
> options like "file 'copy.log'" and
> "table 'copy_log'", it may be better not to limit the case to 'IGNORE'.
> How about something like this?
>
> If ON_ERROR is specified and the value is not STOP, skip rows with
> soft errors
I think when we have more options, then we wouldn't just skip rows
with soft errors but rather save them. So, I left this comment as is
for now.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2024-01-19 13:32:26 | Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log |
| Previous Message | Jakub Wartak | 2024-01-19 12:49:59 | Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly |