[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [GENERAL] postgres FDW cost estimation options unrecognized in 9.3-beta1
From:       Bruce Momjian <bruce () momjian ! us>
Date:       2014-01-31 19:22:38
Message-ID: 20140131192238.GO19957 () momjian ! us
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:28:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Our documentation appears not to disclose this fine point, but a look
> at the SQL-MED standard says it's operating per spec.  The standard also
> says that ADD is an error if the option is already defined, which is a
> bit more defensible, but still not exactly what I'd call user-friendly.
> And the error we issue for that case is pretty misleading too:
> 
> regression=# ALTER SERVER cuda_db10 OPTIONS (use_remote_estimate 'true') ;
> ALTER SERVER
> regression=# ALTER SERVER cuda_db10 OPTIONS (use_remote_estimate 'false') ;
> ERROR:  option "use_remote_estimate" provided more than once
> 
> I think we could do with both more documentation, and better error
> messages for these cases.  In the SET-where-you-should-use-ADD case,
> perhaps
> 
> ERROR:  option "use_remote_estimate" has not been set
> HINT: Use ADD not SET to define an option that wasn't already set.
> 
> In the ADD-where-you-should-use-SET case, perhaps
> 
> ERROR:  option "use_remote_estimate" is already set
> HINT: Use SET not ADD to change an option's value.
> 
> The "provided more than once" wording would be appropriate if the same
> option is specified more than once in the command text, but I'm not sure
> that it's worth the trouble to detect that case.

Where are on this?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]