| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Neill <postgresql(at)richardneill(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #1540: Enhancement request: 'ambiguous' column reference |
| Date: | 2005-03-14 03:00:41 |
| Message-ID: | 4234FE59.4090908@samurai.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Richard Neill wrote:
> I think that the first query ought to succeed, since although priceband is
> ambiguous (it could mean either tbl_prices.priceband or
> tbl_instruments.priceband), the information in the WHERE clause means that
> they are explicitly equal, and so it doesn't matter which one we use.
Well, it just means the type's equality operator returns true for these
two values -- I'm not sure it is wise to assume they are completely
interchangeable.
More generally, it makes sense to me that resolution of column
references is a property of the syntax of a statement, not something
derived from its semantics (e.g. the fact that we can infer for some
particular statement that two columns are equal).
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-03-14 04:24:18 | Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-03-14 02:24:33 | Re: CC Date format code defaults to current centry |