Tom Lane escribió: > What I'm thinking about this today is that really the *right* solution > is to allow syntactically-empty SELECT lists; once we've bought into the > notion of zero-column tables, the notion that you can't have an empty > select list is just fundamentally at odds with that. And since you can > already have semantically-empty SELECT lists, this should in theory not > create much risk of new bugs. If we did that, the existing ruleutils > code is just fine, as are any existing dump files containing this sort > of query.
Wow, as strange-sounding as that is, you're probably correct. This might probably be seen as a deviation from the standard, but then so are zero-column tables. Of course, syntactically-empty select lists would also work with (standard-conforming) tables containing columns, but it's hard to see that that would be a problem in practice. > That change might still be thought too aggressive for a back-patch, > though. Comments? Well, no correct query will start failing due to this change; the only visible change would be queries that previously throw errors would start working. It's hard to see that as a backward-incompatibility. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
