Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to ","

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Dr. Andreas Kunert <kunert(at)cms(dot)hu-berlin(dot)de
> wrote:

> 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."
>

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.

After:

"A joined table is a table derived from two other (real or derived) tables
[...] cross-joins are available."

add something like:

"When explicit joins are mixed in with the comma-list the joins bind more
tightly than the commas."

David J.​