On 9/5/17, 5:53 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
>> On 9/4/17, 8:16 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So I would tend to think that the same column specified multiple times
>>> should cause an error, and that we could let VACUUM run work N times
>>> on a relation if it is specified this much. This feels more natural,
>>> at least to me, and it keeps the code simple.
>>
>> I think that is a reasonable approach. Another option I was thinking
>> about was to de-duplicate only the individual column lists. This
>> alternative approach might be a bit more user-friendly, but I am
>> beginning to agree with you that perhaps we should not try to infer
>> the intent of the user in these "duplicate" scenarios.
>>
>> I'll work on converting the existing de-duplication patch into
>> something more like what you suggested.
>
> Cool. I'll look at anything you have.
I've attached v1 of this patch. I think we might want to refactor the
code for retrieving the relation name from a RangeVar, but it would
probably be better to do that in a separate patch.
Nathan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers