On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:47:59AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Jun-11, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > I noticed that this is accepted: > > > > postgres=# ALTER TABLE t SET (toast.asdf=128); > > ALTER TABLE > > > > I thought since "toast" was a core namespace, it would've been rejected? > > > > I recall having read a discussion about verifying these ... I wasn't able > > to find what I was thinking of, but found this one. > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20090114144332.GF24156%40alvh.no-ip.org > > Uh. ISTM that this was lost during the 9.4 cycle, because that command *is* > rejected in 9.3. > alvherre=# ALTER TABLE t SET (toast.asdf=128); > ERROR: unrecognized parameter "asdf" I'm assuming your "t" has a toast table. I think this is properly rejected when toast exists. It looks like we were maybe both (partially?) fooled by behavior that's been discussed multiple times over the years: SET (toast.*) is ignored for tables which don't currently have any TOAST. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20090211194311.GP8924%40alvh.no-ip.org Maybe all's well, but I suggest there's maybe an question which hasn't been previously been disambiguated and raised: if a table has no toast, should SET (toast.JUNK) be ignored, or rejected ? BTW maybe I was originally thinking of this: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/c4d71df2-9e0e-3912-dc81-9a72e080c238%40lab.ntt.co.jp#c4d71df2-9e0e-3912-dc81-9a72e080c238@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Justin
