From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
cc: jochen.bandhauer@gmx.net, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 7.2.1. The FROM Clause
In-reply-to: <36df7ebde5717e34d88228266c8aef21dc6e8c75.camel@cybertec.at>
References: <178125831604.1285960.8250607197280951685@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <36df7ebde5717e34d88228266c8aef21dc6e8c75.camel@cybertec.at>
Comments: In-reply-to Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
	message dated "Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:09:34 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <118331.1781469634.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2026 16:40:34 -0400
Message-ID: <118332.1781469634@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/118332.1781469634%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> But I understand your confusion.  To be honest, I only learned about the=
 syntax
> "tab *" a few days ago.  Digging through the history, this syntax has be=
en
> obsolete since 2000.  I think we could remove both the paragraph that co=
nfuses
> you and the asterisk from the syntax diagram.  We can leave the obsolete
> syntax to accomodate SQL code that hasn't changed for over 25 years, but=
 I don't
> see a reason to keep it in the documentation.

I think we've discussed that before, and concluded that removing the
docs would be a disservice to users who are trying to read old code
that does this and don't know what it means.  Maybe that argument
is too weak now to justify keeping the docs, but I'm unsure.
I'd be inclined to just rephrase this sentence in hopes of making
it less ambiguous.

			regards, tom lane