Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: DELETE ... USING

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eulerto(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>,PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING
Date: 2005-04-05 04:11:53
Message-ID: 42521009.5080600@samurai.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> ... but when it is TRUE, there should be a notice, same as there is in
> SELECT.  UPDATE should produce such a notice too, IMHO.  Probably we
> omitted the message originally because there was no way to avoid it
> in a DELETE, but now there will be.

Well, my previous message described why I'm not sure that this line of 
reasoning is correct. I think the only really proper configuration is 
add_missing_from=false and an explicit USING/FROM list. Just about the 
only reason to enable add_missing_from would be for compatibility with 
previous releases of PostgreSQL -- and that "compatible" behavior is not 
to issue a warning for UPDATE and DELETE in this situation. If the user 
deliberately enables add_missing_from, I'm inclined to trust them that 
they know what they're doing.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-05 05:02:32
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2005-04-05 04:04:57
Subject: Compressing WAL

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-05 05:02:32
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-05 03:30:58
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group