On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 2:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:17 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@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.
