Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Does the SQL standard actually define LATERAL anywhere?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Does the SQL standard actually define LATERAL anywhere?
Date: 2012-09-27 00:55:40
Message-ID: 10027.1348707340@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Sat, 2012-09-01 at 00:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> this is a spec-defined syntax so surely the SQL standard ought to tell
>> us what to do.  But I'm darned if I see anything in the standard that
>> defines the actual *behavior* of a LATERAL query.

> I have it another read and couldn't find anything either.  As written,
> LATERAL is effectively a noise word, AFAICT.

It's not a noise word --- its effects on scope of name visibility are
spelled out clearly enough.  What is not clear is what the query
semantics are supposed to be in the presence of references that would
be disallowed in the traditional understanding of a FROM clause.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2012-09-27 00:59:58
Subject: Re: Switching timeline over streaming replication
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2012-09-27 00:48:46
Subject: Re: Switching timeline over streaming replication

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group