On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 5:56 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2021-04-08 09:17:42 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > 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. > > Agreed. > > Given that this case didn't error out before the OIDs removal, it seems > like it'd be really strange to make it error out in the compat code...
Agreed to not error out for a no-op case i.e. with (oids = false, oids = false). Thank you all for providing thoughts. I'm ending the discussion here. With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
