X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD364758C9 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:59:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.249.74]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 74283475843 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:59:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11531 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2003 14:12:43 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:12:43 -0600 From: Bruno Wolff III To: Christoph Haller Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: " Adding missing FROM-clause entry for table .... " problem. Message-ID: <20030218141243.GA11505@wolff.to> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Haller , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org References: <3E521E3F.C5E4251B@rodos.fzk.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E521E3F.C5E4251B@rodos.fzk.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200302/399 X-Sequence-Number: 11797 On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 12:51:27 +0100, Christoph Haller wrote: > AFAIK, statements like > > DELETE FROM t1 where t1.id = t2.id ; > > are legal. Could the parser still work on this, if the feature is > removed? Only if a new syntax is added. In fact it would be nice if this automatic adding of join tables was documented under delete. Most people aren't going to notice that the optional listing of joined tables mentioned under the select documenation applies to delete. And if people don't notice they are likely to try to implement this using subselects which may not be as efficient in some cases.