| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 04:11:53 |
| Message-ID: | 42521009.5080600@samurai.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> ... but when it is TRUE, there should be a notice, same as there is in
> SELECT. UPDATE should produce such a notice too, IMHO. Probably we
> omitted the message originally because there was no way to avoid it
> in a DELETE, but now there will be.
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. If the user
deliberately enables add_missing_from, I'm inclined to trust them that
they know what they're doing.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-05 05:02:32 | Re: DELETE ... USING |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-04-05 04:04:57 | Compressing WAL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-05 05:02:32 | Re: DELETE ... USING |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-05 03:30:58 | Re: DELETE ... USING |