On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:12 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:06:32AM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > > At first glance, it looks like ALTER INDEX .. ALTER COLUMN ... SET > > uses the wrong validation function. I've attached a patch where I've > > attempted to fix that and added some tests. > > The gap is larger than than, because ALTER INDEX .. ALTER COLUMN > .. SET is supported by the parser but we don't document it. The only > thing we document now is SET STATISTICS that applies to a column > *number*. > > Anyway, specifying a column name for an ALTER INDEX is not right, no? > Just take for example the case of an expression which has a hardcoded > column name in pg_attribute. So these are not specific to indexes, > which is why we apply column numbers for the statistics case. I think > that we'd better just reject those cases until there is a proper > design done here. As far as I can see, I guess that we should do > things similarly to what we do for SET STATISTICS with column > numbers when it comes to indexes.
+1 it should behave similarly to SET STATISTICS for the index and if someone tries to set with the column name then it should throw an error. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com