> On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Richard Huxton wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 26 Nov 2002 9:43 am, patrick wrote:
>> > Greetings,
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what the correct behavior is here but the observed
>> > behavior seems "wrong" (or at least undesirable).
>> Don't look right to me, and I still see it here in 7.2 and the 7.3 beta
>> I've
>> got (note - not most recent). I don't think it's in the subselect itself
>> -
>> what's happening is when you do
>
> I think it's standard behavior. The column reference is an outer
> reference I believe, IIRC all the names from the outer query are in scope
> in the subselect (although if there's an equivalent name in the subselect
> from tables you'd have to qualify it).
Ah - of course. Otherwise you couldn't do a subselect where foo=outer_foo.
It tries to bind within the subselect, fails, then binds to the outer
clause.
Obvious now Stephan's pointed it out. Also reminds me why I like table
aliases for any complicated queries.
- Richard Huxton
