Re: New warning code for missing FROM relations
От | Zeugswetter Andreas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New warning code for missing FROM relations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 010901bfce24$af521580$ef23080a@sd.spardat.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: New warning code for missing FROM relations (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: New warning code for missing FROM relations
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > I have committed new warning code to alert users who auto-create > > > relations without knowing it. > > > The code issues the warning if it auto-creates a range table entry, and > > > there is already a range table entry identified as coming from a FROM > > > clause. Correlated subqueries should not be a problem because they are > > > not auto-created. > > > > I still prefer the suggestion I made before: complain only if the > > implicit FROM entry is for a table already present in the rangelist > > (under a different alias, obviously). The fact that that choice > > would not break any existing regression tests seems relevant... > > But it seems mine is going to complain if they forget one in a FROM > clause, which sort of makes sense to me. I can do your suggestion, but > this makes more sense. Can we get some other votes? I like it the way you did it. Personally I would even throw an error, but that would probably be too strict. I would change the regressiontest to add onek to the from clause, and not make it throw the warning. Imho this example is only good to demonstrate how you can misuse a feature. There are good examples for using it, but all of those that I can think of don't have a from clause. Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: