Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:
>> What's your definition of "other dbs"? The above statement is quite
>> clearly in violation of the SQL92 and SQL99 specifications:
> And nowhere does it say that <column name> cannot be qualified with
> the table name in front of it.
Au contraire, that is EXACTLY what that bit of BNF is saying. If
they'd meant to allow this construction then the BNF would refer to
<qualified name>, not just <identifier>.
> Looking at the entire message noted
> above the list of other dbs that support it is now Oracle, Sybase,
> MS-SQL and mysql. If "other dbs" ends up the equivilent of "everything
> but PostgreSQL" then which one is non-standard?
Out of curiosity, what do these guys do if I try the obvious
insert into foo (bar.col) ...
regards, tom lane