| From: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] "Adding missing from clause" (replacement) |
| Date: | 2003-05-01 16:50:56 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0305011747210.26465-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 1 May 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > * Add enable_implicited_join GUC, defaulting to true. Emit notice if
> > enabled, throw error if disabled when adding implicit RTE.
>
> I'd call it "enable_implicit_from", I think, but otherwise this seems
> reasonable...
Fair enough, I'm not particularly sold on my choice so here's a replacement
patch with the GUC name changed. If there's a problem it'll probably be because
I edited the patch and not the source.
Log:
* Add enable_implicit_from GUC, defaulting to true. Emit notice if
enabled, throw error if disabled when adding implicit RTE.
--
Nigel J. Andrews
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2003-05-01 16:53:43 | select ... into question |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-05-01 16:32:56 | Re: Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2003-05-01 17:04:49 | Re: [HACKERS] "Adding missing from clause" (replacement) |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-05-01 15:07:51 | Re: [HACKERS] "Adding missing from clause" |