| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| 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 03:30:58 |
| Message-ID: | 6459.1112671858@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
>> euler=# delete from t1 where t1.a = t3.x;
>> DELETE 1
>> euler=#
>>
>> I think we need at least a NOTICE here. Of course it could be extended
>> to UPDATE too.
> I can see an argument for having a NOTICE here. On the other hand,
> add_missing_from will default to false in 8.1, ...
... 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-04-05 03:32:47 | Re: Notes on lock table spilling |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-04-05 02:49:19 | Re: DELETE ... USING |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-04-05 04:11:53 | Re: DELETE ... USING |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-04-05 02:49:19 | Re: DELETE ... USING |