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
> introduced after the flavor that handles options as separate items in
> the query, so redundant options was not something possible with only
> the original grammar.
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?
If "list of options enforcing uniqueness" was a grammatical construct,
the redundancy would be caught by the parser and there would be no
need for ad-hoc code in the implementation of utility statements.
I don't know if that makes sense, unfortunately I know next to nothing
about bison.
Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: https://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite
