"Daniel Verite" writes:
> 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?
I don't think this'd be a great idea. The grammar would have to
do something pretty brute-force to check for dupl
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
>
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 02:58:53PM -0400, Tom Lane 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 parenthesize
"Daniel Verite" writes:
> Currently, it's not an error for CREATE COLLATION to be invoked
> with options repeated several times. The last (rightmost) value is kept
> and the others are lost.
> ...
> I suggest the attached simple patch to raise an error when any of
> these options is specified mult
