| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas" <andreas(dot)zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [SQL] aliases break my query |
| Date: | 2000-05-26 19:47:38 |
| Message-ID: | 002601bfc74b$3fda29c0$f823080a@sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
> > I claim the only thing that buys is
> > confusion for very little convenience at the other end.
> >
> > Stop the madness! :)
>
> I doubt that it's worth breaking a lot of existing applications for.
>
> At one time Bruce had made some patches to emit informative notice
> messages about implicit FROM entries, but that got turned off again
> for reasons that I forget...
I think we could get agreement to not allow implicit from entries
if there is a from clause in the statement, but allow them if a from clause
is missing altogether. The patch did not distinguish the two cases.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas | 2000-05-26 20:01:55 | Re: Any reason to use pg_dumpall on an idle database |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas | 2000-05-26 19:43:20 | Re: Berkeley DB... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Olivier PRENANT | 2000-05-26 20:03:56 | New Type |
| Previous Message | Joseph Shraibman | 2000-05-26 18:13:35 | Re: aliases break my query |