Re: Re: [SQL] aliases break my query

> "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?

Yes, I even added a define called FROM_WARN. It was disabled, and never
enabled. When can we enable it?

--
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