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.
--
Michael