On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Josh Berkus wrote: > Are you sure that a new type of constraint is the way to go for this? > It doesn't solve our issues in the data warehousing space. The spec we > started with for "Error-tolerant COPY" is: > > 1) It must be able to handle parsing errors (i.e. bad char set); > 2) It must be able to handle constraint violations; > 3) It must output all row errors to a log or "errors" table which makes > it possible to determine which input row failed and why; > 4) It must not slow significantly (like, not more than 15%) the speed of > bulk loading. > > On that basis, Alon started working on a low-level error trapper for > COPY. It seems like your idea, which would involve a second constraint > check, would achieve neigher #1 nor #4.
I think in his system it wouldn't check the constraints twice, it'd just potentially check them at a different time than the normal constraint timing, so I think it'd cover #4. I'd wonder if there'd be any possibility of having violations get unnoticed in that case, but I'm not coming up with an obvious way that could happen. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster