> 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.
-- 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