Neil Conway wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> > Could you provide a patch?
>
> Sure, a revised patch is attached. Note that this change will also
> require updating 25 (!) of the regression tests, since they use the
> SELECT-without-FROM syntax. I will update the tests (by adding an
> explicit FROM clause) before applying the patch -- which I'll do
> tomorrow, barring any objections.
Advertising
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.
--
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 8: explain analyze is your friend
