| From: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(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 16:03:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsGm5dPo=7xY_1pSo6yBjJrJt5EjCdHMkitXD7j6jaJ=uw0WQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 11:12, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> More generally, I'm -0.5 on the feature.
> I prefer to force using SQL-compliant queries, and also not take bad
> habits.
>
As to forcing SQL-complaint queries, that ship sailed a long time ago:
Postgres allows but does not enforce the use of SQL-compliant queries, and
many of its important features are extensions anyway, so forcing SQL
compliant queries is out of the question (although I could see the utility
of a mode where it warns or errors on non-compliant queries, at least in
principle).
As to bad habits, I'm having trouble understanding. Why do you think
leaving the alias off a subquery is a bad habit (assuming it were allowed)?
If the name is never used, why are we required to supply it?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-06-27 17:32:50 | Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-06-27 15:37:39 | Re: Lazy JIT IR code generation to increase JIT speed with partitions |