pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com>
To: jian.universality@gmail.com
Cc: zhjwpku@gmail.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Add new COPY option REJECT_LIMIT
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 18:39:54 +0900
Message-ID: <501f4433-b820-4d26-b7f0-1ab9ccf393b3@oss.nttdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e12c970ed22e44d7600662d32afc374d@oss.nttdata.com>
References: <63f99327aa6b404cc951217fa3e61fe4@oss.nttdata.com>
	<fab7018f-6e00-4be4-bd1e-4a013096f6c9@oss.nttdata.com>
	<de0551d0f9d9e9072e324e51ed5c426d@oss.nttdata.com>
	<6e3dcdc6-8e18-4716-a23b-3bee316aeaa7@oss.nttdata.com>
	<979c6d306343f3d665d14eab2cd1b7bc@oss.nttdata.com>
	<920a29a36032befbeb355cbdfbbe0f63@oss.nttdata.com>
	<a873643c-e7d1-456c-b16b-6162ab698036@oss.nttdata.com>
	<54bea7dd-94b1-41f1-a4e9-c5c53cc82ce7@oss.nttdata.com>
	<f9feda0ecd4e2e09620a6f9ca8f4aac1@oss.nttdata.com>
	<644a094c-2c0c-4b5f-b151-3677c7de4ee7@oss.nttdata.com>
	<5f807fcf3a36df7ba41464ab40b5c37d@oss.nttdata.com>
	<056a5728cf733685cff7d9b5a8fbb0ad@oss.nttdata.com>
	<a0343e25-644e-4435-8399-f2e74c04ca23@oss.nttdata.com>
	<dd542f3ce7e15cde7e53824041f2a2f4@oss.nttdata.com>
	<CACJufxEh5e_5BOmP7RAHcuV=e32FpzBMxJ8-W-OFXm-zkdY4yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<d9636900e5a1b7117f5f42daf9be8cab@oss.nttdata.com>
	<8830518a-28ac-43a2-8a11-1676d9a3cdf8@oss.nttdata.com>
	<e12c970ed22e44d7600662d32afc374d@oss.nttdata.com>



On 2024/10/07 21:51, torikoshia wrote:
>> While reviewing, I also noticed that the check for
>> "opts_out->binary && opts_out->on_error != COPY_ON_ERROR_STOP"
>> is similarly placed before setting the defaults, which might not
>> be correct. This check should probably be moved as well.
>> Additionally, the comment mentioning "must do these two" should be
>> updated to "must do these three." These changes should be handled
>> in a separate patch.
> 
> Agreed and attached 0002 patch.

Thanks for updating the 0001 patch and creating the 0002 patch! I've pushed both.


> Also considering when REJECT_LIMIT is specified to 1, attached patch uses errmsg_plural() instead of errmsg.

I don't think errmsg_plural() is needed here since, when 1 is specified,
"rows" should follow "more than REJECT_LIMIT (1)". No?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION






view thread (26+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <501f4433-b820-4d26-b7f0-1ab9ccf393b3@oss.nttdata.com>
Permalink:  ../501f4433-b820-4d26-b7f0-1ab9ccf393b3@oss.nttdata.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/501f4433-b820-4d26-b7f0-1ab9ccf393b3@oss.nttdata.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com, jian.universality@gmail.com, zhjwpku@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Add new COPY option REJECT_LIMIT
  In-Reply-To: <501f4433-b820-4d26-b7f0-1ab9ccf393b3@oss.nttdata.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox