On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 2:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:17 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > PROPOSAL
> >
> > I propose that we change the way duplicate tables are processed to
> > make it so that it is always the *last* one that takes effect (instead
> > of the *first* one).
> >
>
> I don't have a good reason to prefer one over another but I think if
> we do this then we should document the chosen behavior. BTW, why not
> give an error if the duplicate table is present and any one of them or
> both have row-filters? I think the current behavior makes sense
> because it makes no difference if the table is present more than once
> in the list but with row-filter it can make difference so it seems to
> me that giving an error should be considered.
Yes, giving an error if any duplicate table has a filter is also a
good alternative solution.
I only wanted to demonstrate the current problem, and get some
consensus on the solution before implementing a fix. If others are
happy to give an error for this case then that is fine by me too.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.