Hmm, you are correct, I don't have to like it :) but there is both logic and precedence here. Thanks for following up
John On Monday, May 23, 2016, Jinfeng Ni <jinfengn...@gmail.com> wrote: > An quoted identifier is still an identifier (Drill uses back tick as > quote). Per SQL standard, identifier CURRENT_USER / USER/ > CURRENT_SESSION/etc are implicit function calls; no () is required. > > I checked Postgre, and seems it has the same behavior. > > mydb=# create table t1 (id int, "user" varchar(10)); > > mydb=# insert into t1 values(100, 'ABC'); > INSERT 0 1 > > mydb=# select * from t1; > id | user > -----+------ > 100 | ABC > (1 row) > > mydb=# select user from t1; > current_user > -------------- > postgres > (1 row) > > mydb=# select t1.user from t1; > user > ------ > ABC > (1 row) > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 5:12 PM, John Omernik <j...@omernik.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Can (should) things inside back ticks be callable? I guess this makes a > > very difficult situation from a usability standpoint because user is a > not > > uncommon column name (think security logs, web logs, etc) yet in the > > current setup there is lots of possibility for assumptions on calling > back > > tick user back tick and without an error users may have wrong, but > "error" > > free results. > > On May 23, 2016 4:54 PM, "Jinfeng Ni" <jinfengn...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > >> The problem here is that identifier 'user' is not only a reserved > >> word, but also represents a special function == current_user() call. > >> The identifier 'user', whether it's quoted or not, could mean either > >> column name or the function call. Without the table alias, it could > >> be ambiguous to sql parser. The table alias informs the parser that > >> this identifier is not a function call, but a regular identifier, thus > >> removes the ambiguity. > >> > >> This is different from other cases you use quoted reserved word to > >> represent a column name, since those reserved words do not represent a > >> special function, thus no ambiguity. > >> > >> select `update`, `insert` from dfs.tmp.`1.json`; > >> +---------+---------+ > >> | update | insert | > >> +---------+---------+ > >> | abc | 100 | > >> +---------+---------+ > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:44 AM, John Omernik <j...@omernik.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > Ya, as I am testing, this works, however, the users of the system > expect > >> to > >> > be able to use `user` and while I can provide them instructions to > use a > >> > table alias, I am very worried that they will forget and since it > doesn't > >> > error, but instead puts in a different string, this could lead to bad > >> > downstream results... > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:41 PM, John Omernik <j...@omernik.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4692 > >> >> > >> >> I see an alias would work as a tmp fix, but this should be address (I > >> >> wonder if other words may have a problem too?) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Andries Engelbrecht < > >> >> aengelbre...@maprtech.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Hmm interesting. > >> >>> > >> >>> As a workaround just use a table alias when referencing the column. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Might be good to se if there is a JIRA for this, or file one if not. > >> >>> > >> >>> --Andries > >> >>> > >> >>> > On May 23, 2016, at 10:28 AM, John Omernik <j...@omernik.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I have data with a field name user. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > When I select, with backticks, it doesn't show the field, but > >> instead my > >> >>> > current logged in user... > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > select CONVERT_FROM(`user`, 'UTF8') as `user` from table limit 10; > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Shouldn't the backticks allow me to reference the field properly? > >> >>> > > >> >>> > John > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > -- Sent from my iThing
