Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-05 06:28:23
Subject: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-04-05 04:11:53
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-04-05 19:34:16
Subject: Fix resowner.c pgindent mess
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-04-05 04:11:53
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group