Re: Foreign key joins revisited

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 16:24, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> wrote:

> I think if we combine the ON KEY ... TO ... part of my idea, with your
> idea, we have a complete neat solution.
>
> Maybe we can make them a little more similar syntax wise though.
>
> Could you accept "ON KEY" instead of "FOREIGN KEY" for your idea?
> And would a simple dot work instead of ->?
>

I’m not fixed on the details; writing FOREIGN KEY just felt natural, and I
copied the -> from the earlier messages, but I didn’t really mean to
promote those specific syntax elements.

One question to consider: which columns get included in the join and under
what names? When we join USING there is just one copy of each column in the
USING, not one from each source table. This is one of the nicest features
of USING. With this new feature it seems like it might make sense to omit
the join fields from the added table; tricky bit is they don't necessarily
have the same name as existing fields as must be the case with USING.