Re: DELETE ... USING

Neil Conway wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> > Could you provide a patch?
>
> Sure, a revised patch is attached. Note that this change will also
> require updating 25 (!) of the regression tests, since they use the
> SELECT-without-FROM syntax. I will update the tests (by adding an
> explicit FROM clause) before applying the patch -- which I'll do
> tomorrow, barring any objections.

I just checked current CVS and see exactly what you describe:

    test=> SELECT pg_class.* LIMIT 0;
    ERROR:  missing FROM-clause entry for table "pg_class"

    test=> SET add_missing_from=true;
    SET
    test=> SELECT pg_class.* LIMIT 0;
    NOTICE:  adding missing FROM-clause entry for table "pg_class"

Is this what we want?  I don't think so.  I thought we wanted to
maintain the backward-compatible syntax of no FROM clause.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073