Re: Add new error_action COPY ON_ERROR "log"

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:10:00PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 5:47 PM torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>> + if (cstate->opts.on_error != COPY_ON_ERROR_STOP)
>> + {
>> + ereport(NOTICE,
>>
>> I think cstate->opts.on_error is not COPY_ON_ERROR_STOP here, since if
>> it is COPY_ON_ERROR_STOP, InputFunctionCallSafe() should already have
>> errored out.
>>
>> Should it be something like "Assert(cstate->opts.on_error !=
>> COPY_ON_ERROR_STOP)"?
>
> Nice catch. When COPY_ON_ERROR_STOP is specified, we use ereport's
> soft error mechanism. An assertion seems a good choice to validate the
> state is what we expect. Done that way.

Hmm. I am not really on board with this patch, that would generate
one NOTICE message each time a row is incompatible in the soft error
mode. If you have a couple of billion rows to bulk-load into the
backend and even 0.01% of them are corrupted, you could finish with a
more than 100k log entries, and all systems should be careful about
the log quantity generated, especially if we use the syslogger which
could become easily a bottleneck.

The existing ON_ERROR controls what to do on error. I think that we'd
better control the amount of information reported with a completely
separate option, an option even different than where to redirect
errors (if required, which would be either the logs, the client, a
pipe, a combination of these or even all of them).
--
Michael