Re: ruleutils vs. empty targetlists

On 13 December 2013 15:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I can't think of any practical uses for this kind of query, so I don't
>> think it's worth worrying too much about its results until/unless
>> someone comes up with a real use-case.
>
>> However, given that we currently support queries like "select distinct
>> * from nocols" (albeit with rather odd results), I don't think we
>> should start throwing new errors for them. Perhaps the actual risk of
>> a backwards-compatibility break is small, but so too is any benefit
>> from adding such new errors.
>
>> So +1 for the patch as-is, with no new errors.
>
> How about as-is in the back branches, and throw the new errors only
> in HEAD?
>

Seems reasonable.

Regards,
Dean