On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:31 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:36 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:07 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:38:54PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > I think the behavior is correct, but the error message could be > > > > improved, like: > > > > |ERROR: cannot specify FULL with PARALLEL jobs > > > > or similar. > > > > > > Perhaps "cannot use FULL and PARALLEL options together"? > > > > > > > We already have a similar message "cannot specify both PARSER and COPY > > options", so I think the current message is fine. > > So, whether the error message is OK depends on the details. The > situation as I understand it is that a vacuum cannot be both parallel > and full. If you disallow every command that includes both key words, > then the message seems fine. But suppose you allow > > VACUUM (PARALLEL 1, FULL 0) foo; > > There's no technical problem here, because the vacuum is not both > parallel and full. But if you allow that case, then there is an error > message problem, perhaps, because your error message says that you > cannot specify both options, but here you did specify both options, > and yet it worked. So really if this case is allowed a more accurate > error message would be something like: > > ERROR: VACUUM FULL cannot be performed in parallel > > But if you used this latter error message yet disallowed VACUUM > (PARALLEL 1, FULL 0) then it again wouldn't make sense, because the > error message would be now forbidding something that you never tried > to do. > > The point is that we need to decide whether we're going to complain > whenever both options are specified in the syntax, or whether we're > going to complain when they're combined in a way that we don't > support. >
I would prefer later as I don't find it a good idea to unnecessarily block some syntax. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
