Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features)

On 2024-03-28 10:20, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 5:33 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:59 PM Alexander Korotkov
>> <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:16 AM torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>> > > On 2024-01-18 10:10, jian he wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 8:57 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 6:38 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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'".
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> I realized that ON_ERROR syntax synoposis in the documentation is not
> correct. The option doesn't require the value to be quoted and the
> value can be omitted. The attached patch fixes it.
>
> Regards,

Thanks!

Attached patch fixes the doc, but I'm wondering perhaps it might be
better to modify the codes to prohibit abbreviation of the value.

When seeing the query which abbreviates ON_ERROR value, I feel it's not
obvious what happens compared to other options which tolerates
abbreviation of the value such as FREEZE or HEADER.

COPY t1 FROM stdin WITH (ON_ERROR);

What do you think?

--
Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA Group Corporation