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?
> > >
> > =E2=80=8BWill 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.
=E2=80=8B=E2=80=8BWe as a product are at liberty to make the change.=E2=80=
=8B
> 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.
>
> =E2=80=8B
=E2=80=8BThe fact that it is standard is my point. A brand new database pr=
oduct
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.
David J.