From: Tomasz Myrta <jasiek@klaster.net>
To: alien@spaceship.com
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: implied FROM
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 09:14:46 +0200
Message-ID: <3EB21AE6.4020205@klaster.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <34943.24.243.219.116.1051841197.squirrel@earth.spaceship.com>
References: <34943.24.243.219.116.1051841197.squirrel@earth.spaceship.com>
Dnia 2003-05-02 04:06, Uz.ytkownik Matt Mello napisa?:
<cut>
> So, why doesn't asking for a field from a table that IS NOT in the from
> clause throw an exception? Isn't it violating the SQL language? Why is PG
> implying FROM tables?
>
> Thanks!
Your second case is translated into:
select store.storeid from appliance,store where appliance.applianceid = 32;
There was a discussion several months ago about "missing from clause". I
was voting for changing this warning into exception. Some people said,
that it is very useful inside update queries. The conclusion was this
behaviour should stay as it is. Anyway it isn't such a big problem for
me, because the only problem is to catch "missing from clause" warning.
Regards,
Tomasz Myrta
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: jasiek@klaster.net, alien@spaceship.com
Subject: Re: implied FROM
In-Reply-To: <3EB21AE6.4020205@klaster.net>
* 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