On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:50 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 04:57:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > FWIW, like Ashutosh upthread, my vote would be to do nothing here in
> > terms of behavior changes as this is just breaking a behavior for the
> > sake of breaking it, so there are chances that this is going to piss
> > some users that relied accidentally on the existing behavior.
>
> In short, I would be tempted with something like the attached, that
> documents RESTART in CREATE SEQUENCE, while describing its behavior
> according to START. In terms of regression tests, there is already a
> lot in this area with ALTER SEQUENCE, but I think that having two
> tests makes sense for CREATE SEQUENCE: one for RESTART without a
> value and one with, where both explicitely set START.
>
> Thoughts?
-1. IMHO, this is something creating more confusion to the user. We
say that we allow both START and RESTART that RESTART is accepted as a
consequence of our internal option handling in gram.y. Instead, I
recommend throwing errorConflictingDefElem or errmsg("START and
RESTART are mutually exclusive options"). We do throw these errors in
a lot of other places for various options. Others may have better
thoughts though.
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
