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...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
