Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is this what we want? I don't think so. I thought we wanted to
> maintain the backward-compatible syntax of no FROM clause.
We do? Why?
It is just as noncompliant with the SQL spec as other variants of this
behavior. add_missing_from would *always* have rejected those queries,
so ISTM we have been discouraging this case for as long as
add_missing_from has existed. If we want to allow this syntax by
default, we will need to effectively redefine the meaning of
add_missing_from -- which is fine, I just didn't think anyone wanted that.
-Neil