Neil Conway wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I just checked current CVS and see exactly what you describe: > > > > test=> SELECT pg_class.* LIMIT 0; > > ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table "pg_class" > > > > test=> SET add_missing_from=true; > > SET > > test=> SELECT pg_class.* LIMIT 0; > > NOTICE: adding missing FROM-clause entry for table "pg_class" > > > > > Is this what we want? I don't think so. I thought we wanted to > > > maintain the backward-compatible syntax of no FROM clause. > > We do? Why? > > It is just as noncompliant with the SQL spec as other variants of this > behavior. add_missing_from would *always* have rejected those queries, > so ISTM we have been discouraging this case for as long as > add_missing_from has existed. If we want to allow this syntax by > default, we will need to effectively redefine the meaning of > add_missing_from -- which is fine, I just didn't think anyone wanted that.
Oh, so by setting add_missing_from to false, this query starts to fail. I don't know how much people use that syntax. I use it sometimes as hack in psql to avoid typing FROM, but that's hardly a reason to support it. If everyone else is OK with having it fail, that is fine with me, but I wanted to make sure folks saw this was happening. I basically saw no discussion that we were disabling that syntax. [CC moved to hackers.] -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
