Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > "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?
How about a SET variable which allows PostgreSQL to reject any
queries which are not entirely within the specificaton; kind of
like -ansi -pedantic with gcc? Perhaps that's quite a bit of
work, but it seems quite valuable for developing portable
applications...Of course dependency on PostgreSQL extensions
isn't a bad thing either ;-)
Mike Mascari
