Re: DELETE ... USING

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eulerto(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING
Date: 2005-04-09 04:14:19
Message-ID: 19133.1113020059@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

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?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-04-09 04:16:24 Re: [PATCHES] DELETE ... USING
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-04-09 04:12:14 Re: DELETE ... USING

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-04-09 04:16:24 Re: [PATCHES] DELETE ... USING
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-04-09 04:12:14 Re: DELETE ... USING