Re: New warning code for missing FROM relations

At 00:40 3/06/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>The regression tests run fine, except for:
>    
>    SELECT *
>       INTO TABLE tmp1
>       FROM tmp
>       WHERE onek.unique1 < 2;
>    NOTICE:  Adding missing FROM-clause entry for table onek

Personally I would prefer this to generate an error, eg:
   Table 'onek' refereenced in the WHERE clause is not in the FROM clause.

Is is worth adding yet another setting, eg. set sql92=strict, which would
disallow such flagrant breaches of the standard? Maybe it could even be set
as the default in template1? I understand that breaking legacy code is a
bad idea, so the warning is a good step, but I would prefer an error if I
ever write such a statement.

Other DBs I've worked with issue warnings for several version before
changing default behaviour, so perhaps in version 8.0, the above code could
prduce an error by default (unless 'set sql92=relaxed' was specified).

P.S. Given that 'set sql92=xxx' may imply that we are enforcing compliance,
which is unlikely, maybe it should be 'set implied-tables' or something
more specific and meaningful. I have no idea how the 'set' command works,
but to avoid a whole lot of new variables, maybe 'set
sql-compiance-options=no-implied-tables, no-something-else,
allow-another-thing' would allow for expansion...



----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: +61-03-5367 7422            |                 _________  \
Fax: +61-03-5367 7430            |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|                                |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/