David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
> > David G. Johnston wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Jason Turim <jason@signalvine.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see, thanks. Have you all considered making it an error to execute
> > > > correlated queries without table qualifying the column names?
> > > >
> > > âWill never happen. I'm not even sure it would be desirable in a
> > > greenfield situation let alone in an established product.
> >
> > The problem is that this is defined by the SQL standard, so we're not at
> > liberty to change it.
>
> ââWe as a product are at liberty to make the change.â
Sure, if we were open to the option of going against the standard.
> > The opinion of several people is that it would be
> > safer to require the qualification. If this were a green field I'm sure
> > we'd do it differently.
> >
> âThe fact that it is standard is my point. A brand new database product
> today would likely choose to adhere to the standard and/or prevailing
> convention on this topic instead of going it alone and requiring the
> qualification.
I meant "if the standard was being written today they would probably
choose to do differently, seeing how the initial choice is so prone to
causing trouble."
--
Ãlvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services