On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:09:41AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021, at 10:25 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: >> 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?
There is an argument to be made both ways here. >> 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. But I agree with letting what we have here as it is, per the same argument of upthread that this could just break stuff for free, and that's not a maintenance burden either. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
