On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:04 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 03:44:04PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > I don't like this particular solution to the stated complaint. When a > FROM > > entry has an alias it must be referenced via that alias anywhere it is > > referenced in the query - and indeed it is an error to not write the > alias in > > your example. It is not an improvement to write [ table_name | alias ] > in our > > syntax to try and demonstrate this requirement. If we do want to not say > > "table_name" I suggest we say instead "from_reference" and then just > define > > what that means (i.e., an unaliased table name or an alias in the > sibling FROM > > clause attached to this level of the query). I like this better anyway > on the > > grounds that the thing being referenced can be a subquery or a view as > well as > > a table. > > Okay, how is the attached patch? > > The placement in the numbered listing section feels wrong, I am OK with the wording. It should be down in the clause details. FOR lock_strength [ OF from_reference [, ...] ] [ NOWAIT | SKIP LOCKED ] -- need to change this spot to match where lock_strength can be one of [...] + and from_reference must be a table alias or non-hidden table_name referenced in the FROM clause. For more information on each [...] David J.
