When you join by id, the join is unique. You can have combinations of fields, with multiple fields. Is it a maximum fields question.
Isaac Morland <isaac.morl...@gmail.com> schrieb am So., 26. Dez. 2021, 22:37: > On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 16:24, Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> wrote: > > >> I think if we combine the ON KEY ... TO ... part of my idea, with your >> idea, we have a complete neat solution. >> >> Maybe we can make them a little more similar syntax wise though. >> >> Could you accept "ON KEY" instead of "FOREIGN KEY" for your idea? >> And would a simple dot work instead of ->? >> > > I’m not fixed on the details; writing FOREIGN KEY just felt natural, and I > copied the -> from the earlier messages, but I didn’t really mean to > promote those specific syntax elements. > > One question to consider: which columns get included in the join and under > what names? When we join USING there is just one copy of each column in the > USING, not one from each source table. This is one of the nicest features > of USING. With this new feature it seems like it might make sense to omit > the join fields from the added table; tricky bit is they don't necessarily > have the same name as existing fields as must be the case with USING. > >
