From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why is specifying oids = false multiple times in create table is silently ignored? |
Date: | 2021-04-08 00:17:42 |
Message-ID: | YG5Lpqn/4VmaRoO5@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-08 00:26:22 | Re: Why is specifying oids = false multiple times in create table is silently ignored? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-08 00:10:37 | Race condition in InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots() |