Re: unexpected update behavior with temp tables

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:28:16AM -0500, Timothy Perrigo wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, Stephan. I guess I can see the rationale for
> this, though it is quite easy to cause yourself quite a bit of grief.
> It would certainly make things safer if columns in the subselect which
> refer to columns in the table from the outer query where required to be
> fully specified (i.e. "foo.id", instead of just "id"), but if this
> behavior is part of the standard, I imagine there's little chance of
> changing it...

Not to mention the amount of SQL code out there it would break!

We use this feature a lot.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.