On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:25 AM Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 16:12, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It doesn't play that well if you have something called subquery though: > > > > [example that changes a user-provided alias] > > > > While the output is a valid query, it's not nice that it's replacing a > > user provided alias with another one (or force an alias if you have a > > relation called subquery). > > It's already the case that user-provided aliases can get replaced by > new ones in the query-deparsing code, e.g.: > > Regardless, is there any reason to not just prefix our made-up aliases with "pg_" to make it perfectly clear they were generated by the system and are basically implementation details as opposed to something that appeared in the originally written query? I suppose, "because we've haven't until now, so why start" suffices...but still doing a rename/suffixing because of query rewriting and inventing one where we made it optional seem different enough to justify implementing something different. David J.
