On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:35:30AM -0700, Alon Goldshuv wrote:

> 2) A modified command syntax for introducing a direct single row error
> handling. By direct I mean - a row that if rejected from within the COPY
> command context does not throw an error and rollsback the whole transaction.
> Instead the error is caught and recorded elsewhere, maybe in some error
> table, with some more information that can later on be retrieved. The
> following rows continue to be processed. This way there is barely any error
> handling overhead.

Is there any idea on exactly how would this be done?  Do you plan on
using savepoints to implement it?  I fail to see how is this "barely any
overhead".  Savepoints are not that expensive but they are not free either.
(No, I haven't measured it.)

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>)
"Oh, great altar of passive entertainment, bestow upon me thy discordant images
at such speed as to render linear thought impossible" (Calvin a la TV)

In response to

• Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? at 2005-06-01 17:35:30 from Alon Goldshuv

Responses

• Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? at 2005-06-02 16:54:56 from Alon Goldshuv

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-06-02 03:54:08
	Subject: Re: Backslash handling in strings
Previous:	From: Luke Lonergan	Date: 2005-06-02 03:35:57
	Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?