Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 9:49 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On the other hand, SAVE_ERROR_TO takes 'error' or 'none', which >> indicate "immediately error out" and 'just ignore the failure' >> respectively, but these options hardly seem to denote a 'location', >> and appear more like an 'action'. I somewhat suspect that this >> parameter name intially conceived with the assupmtion that it would >> take file names or similar parameters. I'm not sure if others will >> agree, but I think the parameter name might not be the best >> choice. For instance, considering the addition of the third value >> 'log', something like on_error_action (error, ignore, log) would be >> more intuitively understandable. What do you think?
> Probably, but I'm not sure about that. The name SAVE_ERROR_TO assumes > the next word will be location, not action. With some stretch we can > assume 'error' to be location. I think it would be even more stretchy > to think that SAVE_ERROR_TO is followed by action. The other problem with this terminology is that with 'none', what it is doing is the exact opposite of "saving" the errors. I agree we need a better name. 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. regards, tom lane