Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>> I suspect most users, like me, just roll their eyes, grumble, and put up
>> with it rather than complain. It's a pain point, but tolerable enough
>> that no one bothers to demand a change. Now that it's been done though,
>> allow me to add my voice in favor of it!
> +1 to all of that.
[ shrug... ] Well, I won't resist this hard as long as it's done
competently, which to me means "the subquery name doesn't conflict with
anything else". Not "it doesn't conflict unless you're unlucky enough
to have used the same name elsewhere". There are a couple ways we could
achieve that result, but the submitted patch fails to.
(Or, in words of one syllable: if I thought this way was okay, I would
have done it like that back in 2000.)
regards, tom lane
