Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST ... ?

At 02:27 PM 2/21/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes:

>IIRC, Thomas explained that the ANSI syntax says you *must* supply a
>table alias if you are going to supply any column aliases in FROM.
>The regurgitated rule violates that.

Ahhh...column aliases...these ARE standard SQL, then!  I'll be...

I need to spend a couple of days studying Date thorougly someday, rather
than just cherry-picking when specific questions come to mind.

>I guess this is another manifestation of the issue about the system
>shoving in column "aliases" that the user never typed. 

Yes.

> pg_dump is probably repeating what the backend told it.

My fifteen minute sprint through the code led me to believe this
is true.  

>  Think we'll have to
>leave it unfixed till Thomas gets back.

That would be plenty of time to get it in for the real 7.0 release.

If indeed PG would survive the insertion of the table name as a
table alias when none is given - the standard semantics, in other
words - it would be very simple to do.  I'm just a little queasy
about possible side-effects.

>It's also a reminder that the regress tests don't exercise pg_dump :-(

Ohhh...that's not good.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.