Yes, this is what was eventually done... only emit warnings for tables
already in the RTE, as Tom mentioned.
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... The reason this behaves that way is because queries
> > without from lists (SELECT my_tbl.a) are valid in PostgreSQL for
> > histori
Tom Lane writes:
> Not only for historical reasons: there are cases where it allows you
> to do things you couldn't easily do otherwise. An example is deleting
> using a join:
>
> DELETE FROM target WHERE field1 = source.field2
Wow, that seems pretty bogus to me.
> Bruce had actually pu
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Adriaan Joubert wrote:
> I could not understand why I was getting 6 rows back, when I should only
> have been getting one back, until I realised that I had given an alias
> for the table 'fund_class' without using it in the first case.
This is a common problem. According to
Hi,
I could not understand why I was getting 6 rows back, when I should
only
have been getting one back, until I realised that I had given an alias
for the table 'fund_class' without using it in the first case. If I use
the alias I get the expected result. Perhaps this should raise an err
