Thread

  1. Re: New warning code for missing FROM relations

    Zeugswetter Andreas <andreas.zeugswetter@telecom.at> — 2000-06-04T13:06:14Z

    > > 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