Re: ruleutils vs. empty targetlists

Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I can't think of any practical uses for this kind of query, so I don't
> think it's worth worrying too much about its results until/unless
> someone comes up with a real use-case.

> However, given that we currently support queries like "select distinct
> * from nocols" (albeit with rather odd results), I don't think we
> should start throwing new errors for them. Perhaps the actual risk of
> a backwards-compatibility break is small, but so too is any benefit
> from adding such new errors.

> So +1 for the patch as-is, with no new errors.

How about as-is in the back branches, and throw the new errors only
in HEAD?

regards, tom lane