Re: Small fix on COPY ON_ERROR document

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:14:58 -0700
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Also, I think "invalid input syntax" is a bit ambiguous. For example,
> > COPY FROM raises an error when the number of input column does not match
> > to the table schema, but this error is not ignored by ON_ERROR while
> > this seems to fall into the category of "invalid input syntax".
> 
> 
> 
> It is literally the error text that appears if one were not to ignore it.
> It isn’t a category of errors.  But I’m open to ideas here.  But being
> explicit with what on actually sees in the system seemed preferable to
> inventing new classification terms not otherwise used.

Thank you for explanation! I understood the words was from the error messages
that users actually see. However, as Torikoshi-san said in [1], errors other
than valid input syntax (e.g. range error) can be also ignored, therefore it
would be better to describe to be ignored errors more specifically.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7f1457497fa3bf9dfe486f162d1c8ec6%40oss.nttdata.com

> 
> >
> > So, keeping consistency with the existing description, we can say:
> >
> > "Specifies which how to behave when encountering an error due to
> >  column values unacceptable to the input function of each attribute's
> >  data type."
> 
> 
> Yeah, I was considering something along those lines as an option as well.
> But I’d rather add that wording to the glossary.

Although I am still be not convinced if we have to introduce the words
"soft error" to the documentation, I don't care it if there are no other
opposite opinions. 

> 
> > Currently, ON_ERROR doesn't support other soft errors, so it can explain
> > it more simply without introducing the new concept, "soft error" to users.
> >
> >
> Good point.  Seems we should define what user-facing errors are ignored
> anywhere in the system and if we aren’t consistently leveraging these in
> all areas/commands make the necessary qualifications in those specific
> places.
> 

> > I think "left in a deleted state" is also unclear for users because this
> > explains the internal state but not how looks from user's view.How about
> > leaving the explanation "These rows will not be visible or accessible" in
> > the existing statement?
> >
> 
> Just visible then, I don’t like an “or” there and as tuples at least they
> are accessible to the system, in vacuum especially.  But I expected the
> user to understand “as if you deleted it” as their operational concept more
> readily than visible.  I think this will be read by people who haven’t read
> MVCC to fully understand what visible means but know enough to run vacuum
> to clean up updated and deleted data as a rule.

Ok, I agree we can omit "or accessible". How do you like the followings?
Still redundant?

 "If the command fails, these rows are left in a deleted state;
  these rows will not be visible, but they still occupy disk space. "

Regards,
Yugo Nagata

-- 
Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>