On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:04 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 03:44:04PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > I don't like this particular solution to the stated complaint. When a FROM > entry has an alias it must be referenced via that alias anywhere it is > referenced in the query - and indeed it is an error to not write the alias in > your example. It is not an improvement to write [ table_name | alias ] in our > syntax to try and demonstrate this requirement. If we do want to not say > "table_name" I suggest we say instead "from_reference" and then just define > what that means (i.e., an unaliased table name or an alias in the sibling FROM > clause attached to this level of the query). I like this better anyway on the > grounds that the thing being referenced can be a subquery or a view as well as > a table.
Okay, how is the attached patch?
The placement in the numbered listing section feels wrong, I am OK with the wording. It should be down in the clause details.
FOR lock_strength [ OF from_reference [, ...] ] [ NOWAIT | SKIP LOCKED ] -- need to change this spot to match
where lock_strength can be one of
[...]
+ and from_reference must be a table alias or non-hidden table_name referenced in the FROM clause.