| From: | "Dr(dot) Andreas Kunert" <kunert(at)cms(dot)hu-berlin(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to "," |
| Date: | 2014-11-19 12:21:52 |
| Message-ID: | 546C8B60.9020108@cms.hu-berlin.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 18.11.2014 18:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think it's the place of the manual to be prescriptive about style;
> at least, not here.
>
> We could do something like "<CROSS JOIN example> is equivalent to <INNER JOIN ON
> TRUE example>. <CROSS JOIN example> is also equivalent to <example with
> comma>, but in cases with more than two tables this equivalence is not
> exact, because JOIN binds more tightly than comma."
>
> Or maybe put the "but" in a footnote.
Personally, I like the footnote idea best. It is a good compromise
between not worsening the readability of the documentation and still
mentioning the difference in priority for people who stumble upon this
behavior like I did.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Johnston | 2014-11-19 15:50:42 | Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to "," |
| Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2014-11-18 18:54:10 | Re: BUG #11948: Error when installing PostgreSQL 9.3 server |