Re: [PATCHES] DELETE ... USING

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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