Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to ","

David Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> Instead of embedding this in the CROSS JOIN section why not put the
> additional information at the top of the subsection since it does apply to
> all of the join types.

I think the problem is specific to CROSS JOIN, because only for that is
there a temptation to make an analogy with comma.

We do have the binding-strength question addressed explicitly somewhere
else, I believe (probably on the SELECT reference page).  I don't really
feel a need to duplicate that here.  I think the footnote approach might
be the best solution.

            regards, tom lane