"Zeugswetter Andreas" <andreas.zeugswetter@telecom.at> writes:
> I think we could get agreement to not allow implicit from entries
> if there is a from clause in the statement, but allow them if a from clause
> is missing altogether. The patch did not distinguish the two cases.
Hmm, that's a thought. Taking it a little further, how about this:
"Emit a notice [or error if you insist] when an implicit FROM item is
added that refers to the same underlying table as any existing FROM
item."
95% of the complaints I can remember seeing were from people who got
confused by the behavior of "FROM table alias" combined with a reference
like "table.column". Seems to me the above rule would catch this case
without being obtrusive in the useful cases. Comments?
regards, tom lane
