Re: New warning code for missing FROM relations
От | Zeugswetter Andreas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New warning code for missing FROM relations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 011b01bfce25$acdf7260$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 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. > > > > Seems like the real question is what is the goal of having the warning. > > Are we (a) trying to nag people into writing their queries in an > > SQL-compliant way, or are we (b) trying to warn about probable mistakes > > while still considering implicit FROM entries as a fully supported > > Postgres feature? > > > > If the goal is (a) then your way is better, but I like mine if the goal > > is (b). Seems like some discussion is needed here about just what we > > want to accomplish. > > I agree the goal is (b). However, I can not imagine a query with a FROM > clause that would ever want to use auto-creation of range entries. how about: delete from taba where a=tabb.a; I think the implicit auto-creation should only be disallowed/warned in select statements that have a from clause, not update and delete. Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: