> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > >> I still prefer the suggestion I made before: complain only if the
> > >> implicit FROM entry is for a table already present in the rangelist
> > >> (under a different alias, obviously). The fact that that choice
> > >> would not break any existing regression tests seems relevant...
> >
> > > But it seems mine is going to complain if they forget one in a FROM
> > > clause, which sort of makes sense to me.
> >
> > Seems like the real question is what is the goal of having the warning.
> > Are we (a) trying to nag people into writing their queries in an
> > SQL-compliant way, or are we (b) trying to warn about probable mistakes
> > while still considering implicit FROM entries as a fully supported
> > Postgres feature?
> >
> > If the goal is (a) then your way is better, but I like mine if the goal
> > is (b). Seems like some discussion is needed here about just what we
> > want to accomplish.
>
> I agree the goal is (b). However, I can not imagine a query with a FROM
> clause that would ever want to use auto-creation of range entries.
how about:
delete from taba where a=tabb.a;
I think the implicit auto-creation should only be disallowed/warned in
select statements that have a from clause, not update and delete.
Andreas