On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > It's enabled in large part for backwards compatibility. There's a
> runtime
> > option that controls the behavior (add_missing_from).
> >
> IMHO, it would be a more natural choice to have the add_missing_from
> disabled by default. Why would anyone *ever* want faulty SQL being
In general, when we add a backwards compatibility option, we give a couple
of versions before the default is changed. In addition, until we have a
form of delete which allows a "from" list, there are some queries which
are really more naturally written in a form similar to add_missing_from
(although "from" lists would be better).
> magically "patched up" by the dbms?
I think that many people do, even if they don't realize it. Pretty much
almost any extension to the spec is faulty SQL, from != and use of column
aliases in some places they technically aren't allowed to DISTINCT ON and
UPDATE FROM.
