Lonni J Friedman <netllama@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > nightly=# ALTER SERVER cuda_db10 OPTIONS (SET use_remote_estimate 'true') ; > ERROR: option "use_remote_estimate" not found > Am I doing something wrong, or is this a bug? [ experiments... ] You need to say ADD, not SET, to add a new option to the list. SET might more appropriately be spelled REPLACE, because it requires that the object already have a defined value for the option, which will be replaced. 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. Thoughts, better wordings? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
