On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Yeah, I agree --- personally I'd never write a query like that. But >>> the fact that somebody ran into it when v10 has been out for barely >>> a week suggests that people are doing it. > >> Not exactly -- Julien's bug report was about a *qualified* reference >> being incorrectly rejected. > > Nonetheless, he was using a CTE name equivalent to the name of the > query's target table. That's already confusing IMV ... and it does > not seem unreasonable to guess that he only qualified the target > because it stopped working unqualified.
FWIW, the original (and much more complex) query Hugo sent me was inserting data in a qualified table name (the schema wasn't public, and I assume not in his search_path). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers