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
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 |
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 |