Re: Re: [SQL] aliases break my query
От | Andreas Zeugswetter |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [SQL] aliases break my query |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 00052809405405.00145@zeus обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [SQL] aliases break my query (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 26 May 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > "Zeugswetter Andreas" <andreas.zeugswetter@telecom.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? I guess I would be more strict on the reason, that people playing with implicit from entries usually know what they are doing, and thus know how to avoid a from clause if they want that behavior. I don't see a reason to have one table in the from clause but not another. This is too misleading for me. Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: