On Wed, Apr 7, 2021, at 10:25 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:20 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz > <mailto:michael%40paquier.xyz>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:00:46PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > > And also, the commit 578b229718 talks about removing "with (oids = > > > false)" someday. Is it the time now to remove that and error out with > > > "unrecognized parameter "oids""? > > > > Nope, and I think that it will remain around for some time. Keeping > > around the code necessary to silence WITH OIDS has no real maintenance > > cost, and removing it could easily break applications. So there is > > little gain in cleaning up that, and a lot of potential loss for > > users. > > I agree to not remove "with (oids = false)". At least shouldn't we fix > the "create table ... with (oids = false, oids = false ....)" case, > just to be consistent with other options? It would be weird to error out while parsing a no-op option, no?
> But, why do we need to allow specifying oids = false multiple times(see > below)? Shouldn't we throw an error for consistency with other options? > If you look at transformReloptions(), the no-op code is just a hack. Such a patch should add 'oids' as a reloption to test for multiple occurrences. Although, CREATE TABLE says you can use 'oids=false', Storage Parameters section does not mention it as a parameter. The code is fine as is. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
