From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eulerto(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: DELETE ... USING |
Date: | 2005-04-05 05:02:32 |
Message-ID: | 9488.1112677352@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Well, my previous message described why I'm not sure that this line of
> reasoning is correct. I think the only really proper configuration is
> add_missing_from=false and an explicit USING/FROM list. Just about the
> only reason to enable add_missing_from would be for compatibility with
> previous releases of PostgreSQL -- and that "compatible" behavior is not
> to issue a warning for UPDATE and DELETE in this situation.
Hmm. There's some merit in that position, but consider this: we are
encouraging people rather strongly to move to the add_missing_from=false
behavior. So add_missing_from=true could be seen as a testing situation
in which you'd like to know which of your queries have a problem, while
not actually causing your app to fail. Strict backwards compatibility
won't produce the warning but also won't help you find what will break.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-05 06:28:23 | Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql? |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-04-05 04:11:53 | Re: DELETE ... USING |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-04-05 19:34:16 | Fix resowner.c pgindent mess |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-04-05 04:11:53 | Re: DELETE ... USING |