On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Hans Meine wrote: > > I am still not sure if this confusion isn't a bug or weakness in SA that > should be either fixed or handled with a more explicit error message.
the usage pattern as is will likely never be feasible; "SELECT * FROM A, B JOIN C on <onclause>", and then to say "JOIN A to D" onto that implies the statement would then be "SELECT * FROM A JOIN D <onclause>, B JOIN C <onclause>", it's not a good practice to structure the statement like that in the first place and the Query object has enough complexity going on just to keep track of a single chain of joins. You can structure a statement like that with plain select() and join() constructs though, not sure what query planners will think of it. > > E.g. the join() could raise an error instead of silently throwing the first > part of the FROM clause away. (OTOH, I don't see why the latter has to > happen > in the first place.) OK so that part I'm a little curious about as well, from what I recall I didn't quite see what aspect would be removing the "A" from the FROM clause as the join() you added didn't specify "A" as the "left" side in the usual way, so a short test case that is actually runnable and illustrates a working model would be of help here. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
