On Friday, April 3, 2026, Robert Treat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 3:35 PM Andreas Karlsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/3/26 9:27 PM, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > > > On 4/3/26 8:18 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > > >> Per the discussion on -general [1] I propose that we stop using the > > >> generic label storage_parameter on the create table reference page and > > >> instead set up proper labels for table and index variants. > > > > > It's sort of interesting that no one in the above discussion gave an > example like: > create table t (c int, constraint pk primary key (c) with (fillfactor > = 90)) with (fillfactor = 100); > and pointing out that where you put the parameter changes what it > effects, so I'm a little skeptical that this patch would help the > original discussion, but it certainly wouldn't hurt, so +1 from me. >
Stretches my skills a bit but if the error message had been: (unrecognized index storage parameter “autovacuum_enabled”) the syntax placement issue may have been recognized working under the assumption the author knows their intent is to modify the table (and vice-versa). As a quick footgun prevention attempt (not a huge fan though): Note, specifying a primary key or unique constraint as the final component of create table makes assigning storage parameters to the wrong object more likely. (Added to the with clause section) David J.
