From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kristofer Munn <kmunn(at)munn(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SELECT...FOR UPDATE OF class_name |
Date: | 2000-01-16 17:01:54 |
Message-ID: | 20595.948042114@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kristofer Munn <kmunn(at)munn(dot)com> writes:
> select 1 from tbl2 t2, tbl1 t1 where tbl1.id1 = t2.id1 and t2.id1 = 7 ;
> ^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> Does not give any error.
What that's doing is giving you a *three way* join --- Postgres silently
adds an implicit FROM clause for the unaliased tbl1, as if you'd written
FROM tbl2 t2, tbl1 t1, tbl1
This behavior has confused a lot of people; moreover it's not SQL
standard (I think it's a leftover from Berkeley's old POSTQUEL
language). There's been a good deal of talk about removing it,
or at least giving a NOTICE when an implicit FROM clause is added.
FOR UPDATE seems to be set up to not allow implicit FROM clause
addition, which is probably a good thing --- it wouldn't make much
sense to say FOR UPDATE on a table not appearing anywhere else in
the query...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-01-16 17:14:12 | Re: psql variables fixed (?) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-16 16:44:24 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump not in very good shape |