Just to prevent a copy/paste error, I'd correct "will no fail" to "will
now fail" in the suggested text below...
-tfo
--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Co-Founder, Information Architect
Sitening, LLC
Strategic Open Source: Open Your i™
http://www.sitening.com/
110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
Nashville, TN 37
Bruce,
> If everyone else is OK with having it fail, that is fine with me, but I
> wanted to make sure folks saw this was happening. ÂI basically saw no
> discussion that we were disabling that syntax. Â[CC moved to hackers.]
I believe we hashed this out when we added add_missing_from back in 7.3
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, the discussion earlier in the week concluded that
>> add_missing_from=true should emit a notice in every case where
>> add_missing_from=false would fail. Do you want to argue against
>> that conclusion?
> I didn't realize that "SELECT pg_class.*"
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > 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.
>
> Well,
Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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
> >
[ CC'ing hackers to see if anyone else wants to weigh in ]
Tom Lane wrote:
Of course, the entire reason this didn't happen years ago is that we
couldn't agree on what keyword to use... you sure you want to reopen
that discussion?
Sure, it doesn't seem too difficult to settle to me.
I don't think ch
