| 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 16:04:12 |
| Message-ID: | 27062.1416413052@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Instead of embedding this in the CROSS JOIN section why not put the
> additional information at the top of the subsection since it does apply to
> all of the join types.
I think the problem is specific to CROSS JOIN, because only for that is
there a temptation to make an analogy with comma.
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | carlos.vasquez | 2014-11-19 18:37:21 | BUG #12008: REASSIGN OWNED changes other databases |
| Previous Message | David Johnston | 2014-11-19 15:50:42 | Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to "," |