> "Zeugswetter Andreas" <andreas.zeugswetter@telecom.at> writes:
> > I think we could get agreement to not allow implicit from entries
> > if there is a from clause in the statement, but allow them if a from clause
> > is missing altogether. The patch did not distinguish the two cases.
>
> Hmm, that's a thought. Taking it a little further, how about this:
>
> "Emit a notice [or error if you insist] when an implicit FROM item is
> added that refers to the same underlying table as any existing FROM
> item."
>
> 95% of the complaints I can remember seeing were from people who got
> confused by the behavior of "FROM table alias" combined with a reference
> like "table.column". Seems to me the above rule would catch this case
> without being obtrusive in the useful cases. Comments?
Yes, I even added a define called FROM_WARN. It was disabled, and never
enabled. When can we enable it?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
