"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
Hi,
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.
For instance CREATE COLLATION x (lc_ctype='en_US.UTF8',
lc_collate='en_US.UTF8', lc_ctype='C')
silently ignores lc_ctype='en_US.UTF
