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.
--
Michael
