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

On 18.11.2014 18:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think it's the place of the manual to be prescriptive about style;
> at least, not here.
>
> We could do something like "<CROSS JOIN example> is equivalent to <INNER JOIN ON
> TRUE example>.  <CROSS JOIN example> is also equivalent to <example with
> comma>, but in cases with more than two tables this equivalence is not
> exact, because JOIN binds more tightly than comma."
>
> Or maybe put the "but" in a footnote.

Personally, I like the footnote idea best. It is a good compromise
between not worsening the readability of the documentation and still
mentioning the difference in priority for people who stumble upon this
behavior like I did.