On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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.
Yeah, they could have (or at least if they did I couldn't find it this morning) required at least table qualifying outer references. That would have let the same functionality at the cost of only a few extra characters while being more obvious. It'd mean that you'd have to table alias things in subselects where you wanted to get to the same tablename in a higher scope, but it wouldn't have been that bad. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
