On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 at 11:44, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm inclined to think that it isn't worth the effort trying to
> distinguish between conflicting options, options specified more than
> once and faked-up options that weren't really specified. If we just
> make errorConflictingDefElem() report "conflicting or redundant
> options", then it's much easier to update calling code without making
> mistakes. The benefit then comes from the reduced code size and the
> fact that the patch includes pstate in more places, so the
> parser_errposition() indicator helps the user identify the problem.
>
> In file_fdw_validator(), where there is no pstate, it's already using
> "specified more than once" as a hint to clarify the "conflicting or
> redundant options" error, so I think we should leave that alone.
>
Another possibility would be to pass the option list to
errorConflictingDefElem() and it could work out whether or not to
include the "option \%s\" specified more than once" hint, since that
hint probably is useful, and working out whether to include it is
probably less error-prone if it's done there.
Regards,
Dean
