From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ruleutils vs. empty targetlists |
Date: | 2013-12-13 15:15:00 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCVyCvpqxVEbcDytEKr2Z0ZHARt8Ak-L9hzKSKgUhVBCfA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 December 2013 15:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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?
>
Seems reasonable.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-13 15:24:42 | Re: "stuck spinlock" |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-13 15:14:06 | Re: Logging WAL when updating hintbit |