Re: SQL feature requests

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL feature requests
Date: 2007-08-23 19:50:37
Message-ID: 20070823195037.GE31461@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2007, at 14:25 , Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> I just don't see the ability to omit the alias in a query with only one
>>> subquery (the only circumstances under which it would be safe to do so)
>>> as
>>> any significant gain in fuctionality.
>>
>> Why do you think it'd be restricted to only one subquery?
>>
>> As long as you take care that the subquery's column names don't match
>> any other ones in the query, you don't *need* an alias for it ---
>> there'll be no need to qualify the column names. This extends just
>> fine to multiple subqueries.
>
> How about something like gensym? One alias you could always use and be
> guaranteed it would give a unique value. Still provide the alias, but don't
> have to think about name collisions.

It is dangerous to provide a synthetic name; if the standard ever gets
modified to support alias-less subqueries, they would likely choose a
different name-generating algorithm, and we would have a
backward-compatibility problem.

Or is that a backwards-compatibility problem? I remain unsure.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-08-23 20:01:08 Re: SQL feature requests
Previous Message Zdenek Kotala 2007-08-23 19:50:01 Re: pg_ctl configurable timeout