Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is the query in question:
> SELECT element_id as wle_element_id, COUNT(watch_list_id) > FROM watch_list JOIN watch_list_element > ON watch_list.id = watch_list_element.watch_list_id > WHERE watch_list.user_id = 1 > GROUP BY watch_list_element.element_id; > ERROR: Attribute unnamed_join.element_id must be GROUPed or used in an > aggregate function The parser currently considers an output column of a JOIN to be a different variable from the corresponding column of the input table. Thus the above error message. While the distinction is without content in this example, it is extremely real in some nearby cases --- in particular, in NATURAL or USING full outer joins it's possible for one to be null when the other isn't. (And no, I don't think 7.2 got this right.) I'm having a hard time finding anything in the SQL spec that addresses this point specifically --- but I also cannot find anything that suggests that the name scope rules differ between outer and inner joins. So it would be difficult for them to assert that element_id and watch_list_element.element_id must be treated as equivalent here, when they are clearly not equivalent in related cases. Anyone care to offer a gloss on the spec to prove that this behavior is correct or not correct? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html