Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to "," - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Dr. Andreas Kunert
Subject Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to ","
Date
Msg-id 546C8B60.9020108@cms.hu-berlin.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to ","  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to ","
List pgsql-bugs
On 18.11.2014 18:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think it's the place of the manual to be prescriptive about style;
> at least, not here.
>
> We could do something like "<CROSS JOIN example> is equivalent to <INNER JOIN ON
> TRUE example>.  <CROSS JOIN example> is also equivalent to <example with
> comma>, but in cases with more than two tables this equivalence is not
> exact, because JOIN binds more tightly than comma."
>
> Or maybe put the "but" in a footnote.

Personally, I like the footnote idea best. It is a good compromise
between not worsening the readability of the documentation and still
mentioning the difference in priority for people who stumble upon this
behavior like I did.

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: John R Pierce
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #11948: Error when installing PostgreSQL 9.3 server
Next
From: David Johnston
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #12000: "CROSS JOIN" not equivalent to ","