>On Mon, Dec 27, 2021, at 15:48, Isaac Morland wrote: >I thought the proposal was to give the FK constraint name. >However, if the idea now is to allow leaving that out also if there >is only one FK, then that's also OK as long as people understand it can break >in the same way NATURAL JOIN can break >when columns are added later. For that matter, a join mentioning column names >can break if the columns are changed. But >breakage where the query no longer compiles are better than ones where it >suddenly means something very different so >overall I wouldn't worry about this too much.
Yes, my proposal was indeed to give the FK constraint name. I just commented on Corey's different proposal that instead specified FK columns. I agree with your reasoning regarding the trade-offs and problems with such a proposal. I still see more benefits in using the FK constraint name though. I have made some new progress on the idea since last proposal: SYNTAX join_type JOIN KEY referencing_alias.fk_name [ [ AS ] alias ] join_type table_name [ [ AS ] alias ] KEY fk_name REF referenced_alias EXAMPLE FROM permission p LEFT JOIN KEY p.role r LEFT JOIN team_role tr KEY role REF r LEFT JOIN KEY tr.team t LEFT JOIN user_role ur KEY role REF r LEFT JOIN KEY ur.user u WHERE p.id = 1; Foreign key constraint names have been given the same names as the referenced tables. Thoughts? /Joel
