Re: DELETE ... USING

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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