> On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Richard Huxton wrote: > >> On Tuesday 26 Nov 2002 9:43 am, patrick wrote: >> > Greetings, >> > >> > I'm not sure what the correct behavior is here but the observed >> > behavior seems "wrong" (or at least undesirable).
>> Don't look right to me, and I still see it here in 7.2 and the 7.3 beta >> I've >> got (note - not most recent). I don't think it's in the subselect itself >> - >> what's happening is when you do > > I think it's standard behavior. The column reference is an outer > reference I believe, IIRC all the names from the outer query are in scope > in the subselect (although if there's an equivalent name in the subselect > from tables you'd have to qualify it). Ah - of course. Otherwise you couldn't do a subselect where foo=outer_foo. It tries to bind within the subselect, fails, then binds to the outer clause. Obvious now Stephan's pointed it out. Also reminds me why I like table aliases for any complicated queries. - Richard Huxton ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
