| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Foreign key joins revisited |
| Date: | 2021-12-28 19:45:12 |
| Message-ID: | 83c451e0-8b78-dcd3-fda7-0e33e8090339@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/28/21 8:26 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021, at 19:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>> NATURAL JOIN is widely regarded as a foot-gun that the SQL committee
>> should never have invented. Why would we want to create another one?
>>
>> (I suspect that making the constraint name optional would be problematic
>> for reasons of syntax ambiguity, anyway.)
>
> I agree. I remember this blog post from 2013 discussing the problems
> with both NATURAL but also the problems with USING:
> http://www.databasesoup.com/2013/08/fancy-sql-monday-on-vs-natural-join-vs.html
>
> Since my last email in this thread, I've learned KEY is unfortunately not a reserved keyword.
> This probably means the proposed "JOIN KEY" would be problematic, since a relation could be named KEY.
>
> Can with think of some other suitable reserved keyword?
I don't particularly like this whole idea anyway, but if we're going to
have it, I would suggest
JOIN ... USING KEY ...
since USING currently requires a parenthesized list, that shouldn't
create any ambiguity.
> How about JOIN WITH?
WITH is severely overloaded already.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Brusselback | 2021-12-28 19:47:19 | Re: Foreign key joins revisited |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-28 19:41:04 | Re: Foreign key joins revisited |