On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 09:17, Tom Lane wrote: > Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Indeed. At the INNER JOIN it would appear that an alias is applied to > > the columns of a given table. > > ... > > The real trick is to make INNER JOINS less greedy in their requirements > > based on the columns that are actually used. > > What surprised me about this report was not that the JOIN syntax exposed > a dependency on column c, but that the non-JOIN syntax didn't. There > shouldn't be any semantic difference AFAIR, so it seems to me that at > least one of these behaviors needs to be fixed. > > I am not sure that it's practical to remove the dependency as Tim is > hoping for...
I wondered about that too, but by that time figured I was in way over my head. The big difference is that the INNER JOIN code needs to drop one of the colb's coming up with a virtual relation cola, colb, colc; where the other doesn't have such a renaming scheme. Or, thats how it appears to function to the user. I've not dug into the internals. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
