X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047E5475A1F for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:03:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20801.mail.yahoo.com (web20801.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.190]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B9BC47595A for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:03:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030218160310.10141.qmail@web20801.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.13.35.65] by web20801.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:03:10 PST Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:03:10 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Eckermann Subject: Re: " Adding missing FROM-clause entry for table .... " problem. To: Tomasz Myrta Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <3E520F93.4000002@klaster.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200302/402 X-Sequence-Number: 11800 --- Tomasz Myrta wrote: > Christoph Haller wrote: > > > is not valid SQL syntax. What will actually happen > (this is a PostgreSQL > > extension to the standard) is that an implicit > table > > reference is added to the FROM clause, so the > query is processed as if > > it were written as > I think this extension should be removed. I found > all "Adding missing > FROM..." were just results of mistake. Does anyone > use this feature? > What does other Postgres users think about it? > I want to add my vote for keeping the existing functionality. I find it _very_ useful, especially for interactive work. The spare syntax that can be used for update or delete statements greatly enhances understandability (and therefore reduces likelihood of error) in my experience. Saves typing too :-) I would not wish to reduce the functionality of PostgreSQL just to save people from themselves. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com