From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New warning code for missing FROM relations |
Date: | 2000-06-03 17:53:24 |
Message-ID: | 200006031753.NAA22524@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> I still prefer the suggestion I made before: complain only if the
> >> implicit FROM entry is for a table already present in the rangelist
> >> (under a different alias, obviously). The fact that that choice
> >> would not break any existing regression tests seems relevant...
>
> > But it seems mine is going to complain if they forget one in a FROM
> > clause, which sort of makes sense to me.
>
> Seems like the real question is what is the goal of having the warning.
> Are we (a) trying to nag people into writing their queries in an
> SQL-compliant way, or are we (b) trying to warn about probable mistakes
> while still considering implicit FROM entries as a fully supported
> Postgres feature?
>
> If the goal is (a) then your way is better, but I like mine if the goal
> is (b). Seems like some discussion is needed here about just what we
> want to accomplish.
I agree the goal is (b). However, I can not imagine a query with a FROM
clause that would ever want to use auto-creation of range entries.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nissim | 2000-06-03 18:15:15 | Variable formatting of datetime with DateStyle=ISO |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-03 16:44:37 | Re: New warning code for missing FROM relations |