| From: | Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)cvc(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Hervé Piedvache <herve(at)elma(dot)fr>, Darko Prenosil <darko(dot)prenosil(at)finteh(dot)hr>, Postgresql General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why lower's not accept an AS declaration ? |
| Date: | 2003-08-18 23:24:46 |
| Message-ID: | 3F41603E.7030407@cvc.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
because the people who created it had doctorate degrees? kidding:-)
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
>
>>-- This seems really different from our previous standard reading of SQL92
>>though. It implies that you can't really do stuff on input columns
>>except in very limited cases and that'd be really bad.
>
>
> Yes, it seems fraught with bogus restrictions, which makes me wonder if
> we're interpreting it correctly.
>
> I could understand a definition that says "unqualified names are first
> sought as output column names, and if no match then treated as input
> column names; qualified names are always input column names". Perhaps
> that's what they're really trying to do, but why all the strange
> verbiage?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | terry | 2003-08-18 23:50:51 | 3 way outer join dilemma |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-18 22:59:37 | Re: Why lower's not accept an AS declaration ? |