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.

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;
        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                        |               |  (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

Reply via email to