From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: bwest1@cox.net
cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ALTER SERVER SYNTAX ISSUE
In-reply-to: <154094352647.30901.17947219830909553410@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <154094352647.30901.17947219830909553410@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to =?utf-8?q?PG_Doc_comments_form?=
 <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Tue, 30 Oct 2018 23:52:06 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <19423.1540987038.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 07:57:18 -0400
Message-ID: <19424.1540987038@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

=?utf-8?q?PG_Doc_comments_form?= <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> I found that the alter server statement below does not work:
> ALTER SERVER foo OPTIONS (host 'foo', dbname 'foodb');
> but this does:
> ALTER SERVER foo OPTIONS (set host 'foo', set dbname 'foodb');

Hm, define "does not work".  Those aren't equivalent: the first
form adds options that weren't already set, while the second one
changes the values of already-set options.  (The SQL committee
were being unreasonably nitpicky in not providing an add-or-replace
choice, IMO, but that's how the spec is written.)

Is your complaint just that this is inadequately documented?
I see that it's not spelled out in so many words on that page.

			regards, tom lane