| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Dr(dot) Andreas Kunert" <kunert(at)cms(dot)hu-berlin(dot)de>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to "," |
| Date: | 2014-11-19 21:06:41 |
| Message-ID: | 13999.1416431201@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I wrote:
> 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.
I experimented with that and ended up not liking the <footnote> solution,
mainly because this text is near the top of a very long <sect1>, so that
the footnote is very very far away from where it's referenced (at least
in HTML rendering). I ended up just making it a regular <note> and then
rearranging some of the existing text so that we weren't
forward-referencing the concept of nested JOIN clauses. I think this is
a good answer: although we do have the syntactic explanation on the SELECT
reference page, it's not bad to have it here too as long as we can work it
into subsidiary material.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | bashtanov | 2014-11-20 12:23:49 | BUG #12011: information_schema.constraint_column_usage is slow |
| Previous Message | carlos.vasquez | 2014-11-19 18:37:21 | BUG #12008: REASSIGN OWNED changes other databases |