Horton

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

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
To: torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru>, Damir Belyalov <dam.bel07@gmail.com>, zhihuifan1213@163.com, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, anisimow.d@gmail.com, HukuToc@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
Date: 2024-01-10T07:42:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. doc: Fix COPY ON_ERROR option syntax synopsis.

  2. Disallow specifying ON_ERROR option without value.

  3. Rename COPY option from SAVE_ERROR_TO to ON_ERROR

  4. Fix spelling in notice

  5. Add new COPY option SAVE_ERROR_TO

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 11:36 PM torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 10:14 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > If we want only such a feature we need to implement it together (the
> > patch could be split, though). But if some parts of the feature are
> > useful for users as well, I'd recommend implementing it incrementally.
> > That way, the patches can get small and it would be easy for reviewers
> > and committers to review/commit them.
>
> Jian, how do you think this comment?
>
> Looking back at the discussion so far, it seems that not everyone thinks
> saving table information is the best idea[1] and some people think just
> skipping error data is useful.[2]
>
> Since there are issues to be considered from the design such as
> physical/logical replication treatment, putting error information to
> table is likely to take time for consensus building and development.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to follow the following advice and develop the
> functionality incrementally?

Yeah, I'm still thinking it's better to implement this feature
incrementally. Given we're closing to feature freeze, I think it's
unlikely to get the whole feature into PG17 since there are still many
design discussions we need in addition to what Torikoshi-san pointed
out. The feature like "ignore errors" or "logging errors" would have
higher possibilities. Even if we get only these parts of the whole
"error table" feature into PG17, it will make it much easier to
implement "error tables" feature.

>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 4:49 AM Masahiko Sawada
> <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > So I'm thinking we may be able to implement this
> > feature incrementally. The first step would be something like an
> > option to ignore all errors or an option to specify the maximum number
> > of errors to tolerate before raising an ERROR. The second step would
> > be to support logging destinations such as server logs and tables.
>
>
> Attached a patch for this "first step" with reference to v7 patch, which
> logged errors and simpler than latest one.
> - This patch adds new option SAVE_ERROR_TO, but currently only supports
> 'none', which means just skips error data. It is expected to support
> 'log' and 'table'.
> - This patch Skips just soft errors and don't handle other errors such
> as missing column data.

Seems promising. I'll look at the patch.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com