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
> > 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.
>
> We do? Why?
>
> It is just as noncompliant with the SQL spec as other variants of this
> behavior. add_missing_from would *always* have rejected those queries,
> so ISTM we have been discouraging this case for as long as
> add_missing_from has existed. If we want to allow this syntax by
> default, we will need to effectively redefine the meaning of
> add_missing_from -- which is fine, I just didn't think anyone wanted that.

Oh, so by setting add_missing_from to false, this query starts to fail.

I don't know how much people use that syntax. I use it sometimes as
hack in psql to avoid typing FROM, but that's hardly a reason to support
it.

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. I basically saw no
discussion that we were disabling that syntax. [CC moved to hackers.]

--
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 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match