Thread: Re: [HACKERS] column aliases
> >What it looks like to me is that we have a bug in the > expansion of '*'. > >It should be generating columns for both the explicit and > the implicit > >FROM clause, but it's evidently deciding that it should only produce > >output columns for the first one. > > Yes, since it is joining the two tables it should be returning all > columns of the join. > > >This may go a long way towards explaining why people have been so > >readily confused by the implicit-FROM-clause business! > > It *is* confusing, that's for sure! IMHO, if there exists a from clause, we could insist, that all tables are listed (no implicitly added table), since it is really too error prone. What I would not like to see removed is the ability to avoid the from clause alltogether. Like in: select xor.eval; Andreas
> > >This may go a long way towards explaining why people have been so > > >readily confused by the implicit-FROM-clause business! > > > > It *is* confusing, that's for sure! > > IMHO, if there exists a from clause, we could insist, > that all tables are listed (no implicitly added table), > since it is really too error prone. > > What I would not like to see removed is the ability to > avoid the from clause alltogether. Like in: > > select xor.eval; This is an interesting suggestion. I wonder if we can do this. We can avoid producing NOTICE messages in this case. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: >> What I would not like to see removed is the ability to >> avoid the from clause alltogether. Like in: >> >> select xor.eval; > This is an interesting suggestion. I wonder if we can do this. We can > avoid producing NOTICE messages in this case. Sure --- only emit the notice if there is at least one RTE that *is* marked inFromCl. regards, tom lane
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > >> What I would not like to see removed is the ability to > >> avoid the from clause alltogether. Like in: > >> > >> select xor.eval; > > > This is an interesting suggestion. I wonder if we can do this. We can > > avoid producing NOTICE messages in this case. > > Sure --- only emit the notice if there is at least one RTE that *is* > marked inFromCl. Seems like this would avoid most annoying messages. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > > > >What it looks like to me is that we have a bug in the > > expansion of '*'. > > >It should be generating columns for both the explicit and > > the implicit > > >FROM clause, but it's evidently deciding that it should only produce > > >output columns for the first one. > > > > Yes, since it is joining the two tables it should be returning all > > columns of the join. > > > > >This may go a long way towards explaining why people have been so > > >readily confused by the implicit-FROM-clause business! > > > > It *is* confusing, that's for sure! > > IMHO, if there exists a from clause, we could insist, > that all tables are listed (no implicitly added table), > since it is really too error prone. Seems this is exactly what I implemented. > > What I would not like to see removed is the ability to > avoid the from clause alltogether. Like in: > > select xor.eval; > > Andreas > > ************ > -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026