From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Making the subquery alias optional in the FROM clause |
Date: | 2022-06-27 18:43:25 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZ2BhzALU3iNzf9NOGyj00e5-dT1SAnyBW2uFCLyrBRFQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:25 AM Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 16:12, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't play that well if you have something called subquery though:
> >
> > [example that changes a user-provided alias]
> >
> > While the output is a valid query, it's not nice that it's replacing a
> > user provided alias with another one (or force an alias if you have a
> > relation called subquery).
>
> It's already the case that user-provided aliases can get replaced by
> new ones in the query-deparsing code, e.g.:
>
>
Regardless, is there any reason to not just prefix our made-up aliases with
"pg_" to make it perfectly clear they were generated by the system and are
basically implementation details as opposed to something that appeared in
the originally written query?
I suppose, "because we've haven't until now, so why start" suffices...but
still doing a rename/suffixing because of query rewriting and inventing one
where we made it optional seem different enough to justify implementing
something different.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2022-06-27 18:53:45 | Re: Making the subquery alias optional in the FROM clause |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2022-06-27 18:24:57 | Re: Making the subquery alias optional in the FROM clause |