| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eulerto(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DELETE ... USING |
| Date: | 2005-04-09 04:12:14 |
| Message-ID: | 4257561E.4060309@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is this what we want? I don't think so. I thought we wanted to
> maintain the backward-compatible syntax of no FROM clause.
We do? Why?
It is just as noncompliant with the SQL spec as other variants of this
behavior. add_missing_from would *always* have rejected those queries,
so ISTM we have been discouraging this case for as long as
add_missing_from has existed. If we want to allow this syntax by
default, we will need to effectively redefine the meaning of
add_missing_from -- which is fine, I just didn't think anyone wanted that.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-09 04:14:19 | Re: DELETE ... USING |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-04-09 04:11:34 | Re: Optimizing maximum/minimum queries (yet again) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-09 04:14:19 | Re: DELETE ... USING |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-09 04:06:43 | Re: DELETE ... USING |