On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:
> > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >> But I *really* don't see the benefit of that <table>(<table>.<col>)
> >> syntax. Especially when it cannot (?? we need a counterexample) lead to
> >> any additional interesting beneficial behavior.
>
> > The only benefit I can come up with is existing stuff written under
> > the impression that it's acceptable.
>
> That's the only benefit I can see either --- but it's not negligible.
> Especially not if the majority of other DBMSes will take this syntax.
>
> I was originally against adding any such thing, but I'm starting to
> lean in the other direction.
>
> I'd want it to error out on "INSERT foo (bar.col)", though ;-)
So would I.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo
atPop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore
http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
