From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | vitus(at)ice(dot)ru |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What's the difference? |
Date: | 2002-04-08 19:43:51 |
Message-ID: | 23004.1018295031@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Victor Wagner <vitus(at)ice(dot)ru> writes:
>> Same results, but the second two constrain the planner's choice of join
>> order. See
>> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.2/postgres/explicit-joins.html
>> Whether this is a feature or a bug depends on context...
>> regards, tom lane
> I can agree that this is feature if one uses natural or inner joins.
> But if query semantic needs outer joins there is no way to tell the
> planner that it is free to choose order of joining.
But it is *not* free to alter the join order of outer joins; if it does,
that will change the result. See the discussion on the above-linked
page.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pgsql-bugs | 2002-04-09 01:35:16 | Bug #630: date/time storage problem: timestamp parsed incorrectly... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-08 19:32:16 | Re: Full path to procedural language in the dump is a bug |