Tom Lane wrote:
>Dmitry Tkach <dmitry@openratings.com> writes:
>
>
>>I suppose, this is because the planner takes the order, in which the
>>tables appear in the explicit joins as some kind of a hint to how I want
>>that query to be executed,
>>
>>
>
>It's not a "hint", it's a requirement. In general, changing the order
>in which outer joins are executed changes the results.
>
>There are some cases in which it is safe to rearrange the order, but
>determining this takes close analysis of the join conditions, and we
>don't (yet) have any code to do that. So the planner must be
>conservative and take your join order as gospel.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
Yeah.. that's what I figured.
Are you saying there is no way around it at all? Isn't there a syntax
supported to write a left join with implicit joins?
