X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B294758C9 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:51:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from fzkmail2.fzk.de (fzkmail2.fzk.de [141.52.27.52]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43607475843 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: FROM resy5.fzk.de BY fzkmail2.fzk.de ; Tue Feb 18 12:51:28 2003 +0100 Received: œby rodos.fzk.de with ESMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.7.1) id MAA28356 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:51:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3E521E3F.C5E4251B@rodos.fzk.de> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:51:27 +0100 From: Christoph Haller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/780) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: " Adding missing FROM-clause entry for table .... " problem. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200302/397 X-Sequence-Number: 11795 > > 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? > 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