Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ;-)
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
