Message-ID: <1081.192.168.1.16.1038330273.squirrel@mainbox.archonet.com>
In-Reply-To: <20021126075031.N77510-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
References: <200211261041.50766.dev@archonet.com>
	<20021126075031.N77510-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:04:33 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Are sub-select error suppressed?
From: dev@archonet.com
To: "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
Cc: "Richard Huxton" <dev@archonet.com>,
	"patrick" <patrick+pgsql@boxsoft.com>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Importance: Normal

> 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