Thanks again, it's very clear now
On Jul 15, 2016 7:57 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Jason Turim <jason@signalvine.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I see, thanks. Have you all considered making it an error to execute
> > > correlated queries without table qualifying the column names?
> > >
> > =E2=80=8BWill never happen. I'm not even sure it would be desirable in=
a
> > greenfield situation let alone in an established product.
>
> The problem is that this is defined by the SQL standard, so we're not at
> liberty to change it. The opinion of several people is that it would be
> safer to require the qualification. If this were a green field I'm sure
> we'd do it differently.
>
> --
> =C3=81lvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
