X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27117474E4F
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Fri,  2 May 2003 03:15:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from serwer.skawsoft.com.pl (serwer.skawsoft.com.pl [213.25.37.66])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD231476128
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Fri,  2 May 2003 03:14:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from klaster.net (pi113.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl [217.99.209.113])
	by serwer.skawsoft.com.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1033B2B3D4; Fri,  2 May 2003 09:14:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3EB21AE6.4020205@klaster.net>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 09:14:46 +0200
From: Tomasz Myrta <jasiek@klaster.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; PL; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language: pl, en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: alien@spaceship.com
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: implied FROM
References: <34943.24.243.219.116.1051841197.squirrel@earth.spaceship.com>
In-Reply-To: <34943.24.243.219.116.1051841197.squirrel@earth.spaceship.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-32.3 required=5.0
	tests=BAYES_01,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
	REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA
	autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
X-Archive-Number: 200305/14
X-Sequence-Number: 13179

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?
>=20
> Thanks!
Your second case is translated into:
select store.storeid from appliance,store where appliance.applianceid =3D 3=
2;

There was a discussion several months ago about "missing from clause". I=20
was voting for changing this warning into exception. Some people said,=20
that it is very useful inside update queries. The conclusion was this=20
behaviour should stay as it is. Anyway it isn't such a big problem for=20
me, because the only problem is to catch "missing from clause" warning.

Regards,
Tomasz Myrta