| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josef Šimánek <josef(dot)simanek(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add --syntax to postgres for SQL syntax checking |
| Date: | 2024-05-16 09:03:57 |
| Message-ID: | 6ffc71444c303b8309c78a3d834d5ce319f187a7.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 14:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The thing that was bothering me most about this is that I don't
> understand why that's a useful check. If I meant to type
>
> UPDATE mytab SET mycol = 42;
>
> and instead I type
>
> UPDATEE mytab SET mycol = 42;
>
> your proposed feature would catch that; great. But if I type
>
> UPDATE mytabb SET mycol = 42;
>
> it won't. How does that make sense?
It makes sense to me. I see a clear distinction between "this is a
valid SQL statement" and "this is an SQL statement that will run on
a specific database with certain objects in it".
To me, "correct syntax" is the former.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-05-16 09:21:56 | Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2024-05-16 08:57:10 | Re: Postgres and --config-file option |