| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas" <andreas(dot)zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [SQL] aliases break my query |
| Date: | 2000-05-26 21:34:28 |
| Message-ID: | 3661.959376868@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
"Zeugswetter Andreas" <andreas(dot)zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> writes:
> I think we could get agreement to not allow implicit from entries
> if there is a from clause in the statement, but allow them if a from clause
> is missing altogether. The patch did not distinguish the two cases.
Hmm, that's a thought. Taking it a little further, how about this:
"Emit a notice [or error if you insist] when an implicit FROM item is
added that refers to the same underlying table as any existing FROM
item."
95% of the complaints I can remember seeing were from people who got
confused by the behavior of "FROM table alias" combined with a reference
like "table.column". Seems to me the above rule would catch this case
without being obtrusive in the useful cases. Comments?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-05-26 22:30:14 | Re: Re: [SQL] aliases break my query |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-05-26 21:04:49 | RE: Berkeley DB... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-05-26 22:30:14 | Re: Re: [SQL] aliases break my query |
| Previous Message | Gabriel Russell | 2000-05-26 21:24:51 | is limit a reserved keyword? |