Michael Paquier wrote: > > Hmm ... I think that that is pretty standard behavior for a lot of > > our utility commands. Trying something at random, > > The behavior handling is a bit inconsistent. For example EXPLAIN and > VACUUM don't do that, because their parenthesized grammar got > introduced after the flavor that handles options as separate items in > the query, so redundant options was not something possible with only > the original grammar.
Assuming we agree that redundant options should consistently raise an error for a certain class of statements, could it be handled at the grammar level? If "list of options enforcing uniqueness" was a grammatical construct, the redundancy would be caught by the parser and there would be no need for ad-hoc code in the implementation of utility statements. I don't know if that makes sense, unfortunately I know next to nothing about bison. Best regards, -- Daniel Vérité PostgreSQL-powered mailer: https://www.manitou-mail.org Twitter: @DanielVerite
