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: <55a66acaf8bc6a29ed0c553c7e1bbd6639dc0484.camel@cybertec.at>
References: <178125831604.1285960.8250607197280951685@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <36df7ebde5717e34d88228266c8aef21dc6e8c75.camel@cybertec.at>
 <118332.1781469634@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <b6edba3f2eea272a5b663935544e89e8a15221ac.camel@cybertec.at>
 <227073.1781535952@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <55a66acaf8bc6a29ed0c553c7e1bbd6639dc0484.camel@cybertec.at>
Comments: In-reply-to Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
	message dated "Mon, 15 Jun 2026 17:24:49 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <238798.1781543668.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 13:14:28 -0400
Message-ID: <238799.1781543668@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/238799.1781543668%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> On Mon, 2026-06-15 at 11:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can look up the version where it changed, if this seems like the way
>> to go.

> I did, and * became obsolete with 7.1.  It's even in the release notes.

Well, not really.  7.1 changed this behavior to depend on the
sql_inheritance GUC.  It wasn't till v10 when we removed that GUC
(see e13486eba) that you could really safely assume that an
undecorated table name includes child tables.  So I think we should
say it's obsolete since v10 not 7.1.

Pushed with those changes.

			regards, tom lane