Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE OF clause documentation implies use of table_names rather than aliases

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:04 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 03:44:04PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > I don't like this particular solution to the stated complaint. When a
> FROM
> > entry has an alias it must be referenced via that alias anywhere it is
> > referenced in the query - and indeed it is an error to not write the
> alias in
> > your example. It is not an improvement to write [ table_name | alias ]
> in our
> > syntax to try and demonstrate this requirement. If we do want to not say
> > "table_name" I suggest we say instead "from_reference" and then just
> define
> > what that means (i.e., an unaliased table name or an alias in the
> sibling FROM
> > clause attached to this level of the query). I like this better anyway
> on the
> > grounds that the thing being referenced can be a subquery or a view as
> well as
> > a table.
>
> Okay, how is the attached patch?
>
>
The placement in the numbered listing section feels wrong, I am OK with
the wording. It should be down in the clause details.

FOR lock_strength [ OF from_reference [, ...] ] [ NOWAIT | SKIP LOCKED ]
-- need to change this spot to match

where lock_strength can be one of

[...]

+ and from_reference must be a table alias or non-hidden table_name
referenced in the FROM clause.

For more information on each [...]

David J.