From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eulerto(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] DELETE ... USING |
Date: | 2005-04-09 04:18:53 |
Message-ID: | 200504090418.j394IrW16352@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > test=> SELECT pg_class.* LIMIT 0;
> > NOTICE: adding missing FROM-clause entry for table "pg_class"
>
> > Is this what we want? I don't think so. I thought we wanted to
> > maintain the backward-compatible syntax of no FROM clause.
>
> Well, the discussion earlier in the week concluded that
> add_missing_from=true should emit a notice in every case where
> add_missing_from=false would fail. Do you want to argue against
> that conclusion?
I didn't realize that "SELECT pg_class.*" was now going to fail because
add_missing_from is false. I didn't link those two together in my head,
probably because the warning is not emitted if there is no FROM clause.
Anyway, I am fine either way but wanted to publicise it at least.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-04-09 04:19:19 | Re: Optimizing maximum/minimum queries (yet again) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-09 04:16:24 | Re: [PATCHES] DELETE ... USING |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-09 04:46:51 | Re: [PATCHES] DELETE ... USING |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-09 04:16:24 | Re: [PATCHES] DELETE ... USING |