Re: ruleutils vs. empty targetlists

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ruleutils vs. empty targetlists
Date: 2013-12-04 14:01:32
Message-ID: 20131204140132.GM5158@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane escribió:

> What I'm thinking about this today is that really the *right* solution
> is to allow syntactically-empty SELECT lists; once we've bought into the
> notion of zero-column tables, the notion that you can't have an empty
> select list is just fundamentally at odds with that. And since you can
> already have semantically-empty SELECT lists, this should in theory not
> create much risk of new bugs. If we did that, the existing ruleutils
> code is just fine, as are any existing dump files containing this sort
> of query.

Wow, as strange-sounding as that is, you're probably correct.

This might probably be seen as a deviation from the standard, but then
so are zero-column tables. Of course, syntactically-empty select lists
would also work with (standard-conforming) tables containing columns,
but it's hard to see that that would be a problem in practice.

> That change might still be thought too aggressive for a back-patch,
> though. Comments?

Well, no correct query will start failing due to this change; the only
visible change would be queries that previously throw errors would start
working. It's hard to see that as a backward-incompatibility.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-12-04 14:01:59 Re: Time-Delayed Standbys
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-12-04 13:54:01 Re: Time-Delayed Standbys