From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Neill <postgresql(at)richardneill(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #1540: Enhancement request: 'ambiguous' column reference |
Date: | 2005-03-14 03:00:41 |
Message-ID: | 4234FE59.4090908@samurai.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Richard Neill wrote:
> I think that the first query ought to succeed, since although priceband is
> ambiguous (it could mean either tbl_prices.priceband or
> tbl_instruments.priceband), the information in the WHERE clause means that
> they are explicitly equal, and so it doesn't matter which one we use.
Well, it just means the type's equality operator returns true for these
two values -- I'm not sure it is wise to assume they are completely
interchangeable.
More generally, it makes sense to me that resolution of column
references is a property of the syntax of a statement, not something
derived from its semantics (e.g. the fact that we can infer for some
particular statement that two columns are equal).
-Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-03-14 04:24:18 | Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-03-14 02:24:33 | Re: CC Date format code defaults to current centry |