| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Reggie Burnett" <rykr(at)bellsouth(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "'Dave Cramer'" <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "'PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Request for qualified column names |
| Date: | 2003-01-27 15:21:10 |
| Message-ID: | 26547.1043680870@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Reggie Burnett" <rykr(at)bellsouth(dot)net> writes:
> When talking about expressions,views, or any other construct that could
> combine values from multiple tables I think it is reasonable to provide
> null as the table name. Any one or any process requesting the table
> name has to understand that not all SQL parameters have a base table
> name. However, in the case where a single table is involved, table and
> schema names should be available.
That seems quite pointless. You hardly need the backend's help to
determine which column belongs to which table in a single-table query.
AFAICS this facility is only of interest if it does something useful
in not-so-trivial cases.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Antti Haapala | 2003-01-27 15:24:00 | Re: Switching connection on the fly |
| Previous Message | Antti Haapala | 2003-01-27 15:20:08 | Re: Switching connection on the fly |