Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sUnHP-005heW-4p for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:04:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sUnHN-00GHix-7r for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:04:09 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sUnHM-00GHip-Uw for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:04:09 +0000 Received: from oss.nttdata.com ([49.212.34.109]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sUnHG-000Nqb-Nd for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:04:08 +0000 Received: from [192.168.11.3] (p4227034-ipxg13801funabasi.chiba.ocn.ne.jp [122.26.176.34]) by oss.nttdata.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6850A615A3; Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:03:58 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.11 at oss.nttdata.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:03:57 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Add new COPY option REJECT_LIMIT To: torikoshia Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org References: <63f99327aa6b404cc951217fa3e61fe4@oss.nttdata.com> <6e3dcdc6-8e18-4716-a23b-3bee316aeaa7@oss.nttdata.com> <979c6d306343f3d665d14eab2cd1b7bc@oss.nttdata.com> <920a29a36032befbeb355cbdfbbe0f63@oss.nttdata.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fujii Masao In-Reply-To: <920a29a36032befbeb355cbdfbbe0f63@oss.nttdata.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 2024/07/17 22:21, torikoshia wrote: > On 2024-07-03 02:07, Fujii Masao wrote: >> However, if we support REJECT_LIMIT, I'm not sure if the ON_ERROR option is still necessary. > > I remembered another reason for the necessity of ON_ERROR. > > ON_ERROR defines how to behave when encountering an error and it just accepts 'ignore' and 'stop' currently, but is expected to support other options such as saving details of errors to a table[1]. Wouldn't it be better to separate the option specifying where error details are output from the ON_ERROR option (which determines behavior when encountering errors)? "table" seems valid for both ON_ERROR=ignore and ON_ERROR=stop. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION