On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > 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 ;-)
So would I. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ========================================================================== ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
