X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B5E47580B for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:40:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4B7475458 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:40:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1IFeA5u023713; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:40:11 -0500 (EST) To: Tomasz Myrta Cc: Christoph Haller , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: " Adding missing FROM-clause entry for table .... " problem. In-reply-to: <3E520F93.4000002@klaster.net> References: <3E520C32.CD9C82FA@rodos.fzk.de> <3E520F93.4000002@klaster.net> Comments: In-reply-to Tomasz Myrta message dated "Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:48:51 +0100" Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:40:10 -0500 Message-ID: <23712.1045582810@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200302/400 X-Sequence-Number: 11798 Tomasz Myrta writes: > 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 don't think it's likely to get removed any time soon. Maybe a workable compromise would be to add a GUC parameter "allow_implicit_from", with options "ok" (completely permissive), "notice" (the current behavior), and "error" (disallow it). But we'd have to do something about the DELETE syntax before the "error" setting would be real useful. regards, tom lane