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; 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