Thread: add_missing_from in 8.1
I'd like to make add_missing_from=false the default for 8.1. Any objections? I think the only reason not to do this is for backward compatibility with previous releases of PostgreSQL, but I don't find that too compelling: it is easy to fix up queries that rely on the old behavior, and the old behavior if not compliant with the SQL spec. Also, the admin can always enable add_missing_from locally if they can't afford to update their applications. Per usual, we should mention the change prominently in the "Incompatibilities" section of the release notes. Barring any objections, I'll send in a patch that implements this soon. -Neil
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> I'd like to make add_missing_from=false the default for 8.1. Any objections?
We still don't have a solution for DELETE, do we?
regards, tom lane
Hi, > > I'd like to make add_missing_from=false the default for 8.1. Any > objections? > > We still don't have a solution for DELETE, do we? > Are you talking about DELETE FROM bar USING foo ? I submitted a patch some months ago. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-12/msg00169.php And IIRC I could be fine if we just disable add_missing_from like Neil suggest because if someone write the join incorrectly i'll lead to exclude all rows in the table. Euler Taveira de Oliveira euler[at]yahoo_com_br Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > Hi, > > > > I'd like to make add_missing_from=false the default for 8.1. Any > > objections? > > > > We still don't have a solution for DELETE, do we? > > > Are you talking about DELETE FROM bar USING foo ? I submitted a patch > some months ago. > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-12/msg00169.php > And IIRC I could be fine if we just disable add_missing_from like Neil > suggest because if someone write the join incorrectly i'll lead to > exclude all rows in the table. Wow, seems I lost that somehow. I don't see it the 8.1 patches queue. Let me add this email now so I don't lose it. -- 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, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Wow, seems I lost that somehow. BTW, I personally think it is fine for patch submitters to send "ping" mails if your patch is not applied or reviewed within a reasonable period of time -- this is standard practice among the GCC community, for example. I certainly have a tendency to lose track of the status of the various outstanding patches. -Neil
Neil Conway wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Wow, seems I lost that somehow. > > BTW, I personally think it is fine for patch submitters to send "ping" > mails if your patch is not applied or reviewed within a reasonable > period of time -- this is standard practice among the GCC community, > for example. I certainly have a tendency to lose track of the status of > the various outstanding patches. Agreed, but I shouldn't have lost it. They shouldn't _need_ to ping, and if they do, I hope I can saw we have it, rather than I don't. :-( -- 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, Pennsylvania19073
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: > Are you talking about DELETE FROM bar USING foo ? I submitted a patch > some months ago. At a quick glance, looks pretty good. It needs regression tests, and I'd also like to refactor the analyze.c additions to use the same code UPDATE uses for the tlist transformation. I'll review and apply this weekend. -Neil
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
>> Are you talking about DELETE FROM bar USING foo ? I submitted a patch
>> some months ago.
> At a quick glance, looks pretty good. It needs regression tests, and I'd
> also like to refactor the analyze.c additions to use the same code
> UPDATE uses for the tlist transformation. I'll review and apply this
> weekend.
Huh? DELETE hasn't got a tlist to transform ...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Huh? DELETE hasn't got a tlist to transform ... Yeah -- on looking closer, the patch copied and pasted a bunch of tlist transformation code from UPDATE, but AFAICS there is no need for it. -Neil
Neil Conway wrote: > I'd like to make add_missing_from=false the default for 8.1. Any > objections? FYI, I've applied a patch that makes this change to CVS HEAD. -Neil