From: Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: " Adding missing FROM-clause entry for table .... " problem.
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:51:27 +0100
Message-ID: <3E521E3F.C5E4251B@rodos.fzk.de> (raw)
>
> Christoph Haller wrote:
> <cut>
> > 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?
>
No, I do not use the feature.
And I agree it's prone to mistakes.
But I think mentioning it within the documentation and sending a NOTICE:
is enough.
What about side-effects on WHERE-clauses using a second table as
reference?
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?
Regards, Christoph
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: ch@rodos.fzk.de
Subject: Re: " Adding missing FROM-clause entry for table .... " problem.
In-Reply-To: <3E521E3F.C5E4251B@rodos.fzk.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox