Re: column aliases

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: column aliases
Date: 2000-06-08 03:05:46
Message-ID: 200006080305.XAA10160@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
>
> > >What it looks like to me is that we have a bug in the
> > expansion of '*'.
> > >It should be generating columns for both the explicit and
> > the implicit
> > >FROM clause, but it's evidently deciding that it should only produce
> > >output columns for the first one.
> >
> > Yes, since it is joining the two tables it should be returning all
> > columns of the join.
> >
> > >This may go a long way towards explaining why people have been so
> > >readily confused by the implicit-FROM-clause business!
> >
> > It *is* confusing, that's for sure!
>
> IMHO, if there exists a from clause, we could insist,
> that all tables are listed (no implicitly added table),
> since it is really too error prone.

Seems this is exactly what I implemented.

>
> What I would not like to see removed is the ability to
> avoid the from clause alltogether. Like in:
>
> select xor.eval;
>
> Andreas
>
> ************
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-08 03:09:07 DROP COLUMN status
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-08 02:58:53 Re: column aliases