Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 3 March 2018 at 13:08, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
> wrote:
>> I think one thing to try would to define a special kind of exception
>> that can safely be caught and ignored. Then, input functions can
>> communicate benign parse errors by doing their own cleanup first, then
>> throwing this exception, and then the COPY subsystem can deal with it.
> That makes sense. We'd only use the error code range in question when it
> was safe to catch without re-throw, and we'd have to enforce rules around
> using a specific memory context.
I don't think that can possibly work. It would only be safe if, between
the thrower and the catcher, there were no other levels of control
operating according to the normal error-handling rules. But input
functions certainly cannot assume that they are only called by COPY,
so how could they safely throw a "soft error"?
regards, tom lane