> At one time Bruce had made some patches to emit informative notice
> messages about implicit FROM entries, but that got turned off again
> for reasons that I forget...
It was triggered with common cases from the "outer join" syntax. It took
a while to track down since it was introduced while I
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Joseph Shraibman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > These two queries are exactly alike. The first one uses aliases except
> > for the order by. The second uses aliases also for the order by. The
> > third uses whole names. The third has the behavior I want.
>
> I think you are
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > > playpen=> select ta.a,ta.b,ta.c, (select count (tb.zz) where tb.yy =
> > > ta.a) from tablea ta, tableb tb order by tablea.a;
> > [ produces 80 rows ]
>
> > > playpen=> select ta.a,ta.b,ta.c, (select count (tb.zz) where tb.yy =
> > > ta.a) from tablea ta, tableb t
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Once again, I think that we *really* need to discuss whether implicit
> range table entries in SELECT are a good idea. We invariably get a
> question like this every week and invariably the answer is "if you give a
> table an alias you *must* refer to
> > playpen=> select ta.a,ta.b,ta.c, (select count (tb.zz) where tb.yy =
> > ta.a) from tablea ta, tableb tb order by tablea.a;
> [ produces 80 rows ]
> > playpen=> select ta.a,ta.b,ta.c, (select count (tb.zz) where tb.yy =
> > ta.a) from tablea ta, tableb tb order by ta.a;
> [ produces 20 rows ]
Joseph Shraibman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> These two queries are exactly alike. The first one uses aliases except
> for the order by. The second uses aliases also for the order by. The
> third uses whole names. The third has the behavior I want.
I think you are confusing yourself by leaving
