Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features)
От | torikoshia |
---|---|
Тема | Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ff414dce2f046dc94c52d4cd249bd57a@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features) (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-01-18 16:59, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:16 AM torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com> > wrote: >> On 2024-01-18 10:10, jian he wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 8:57 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> > 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". >> >> I'm not sure whether error_action or on_error is better, but either >> way >> "error_action error" and "on_error error" seems a bit odd to me. >> I feel "stop" is better for both cases as Tom suggested. > > OK. What about this? > on_error {stop|ignore|other_future_option} > where other_future_option might be compound like "file 'copy.log'" or > "table 'copy_log'". Thanks, also +1 from me. -- Regards, -- Atsushi Torikoshi NTT DATA Group Corporation
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: