Support nested joins #100
Support nested joins #100
Conversation
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 290
💛 - Coveralls |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought fixing this would have to deal with the weird way we store joins, with FROM foo NATURAL JOIN bar, baz NATURAL JOIN qux stored as vec![Natural "bar", Implicit "baz", Natural "qux"] instead of From [Natural ("foo", "bar"), Natural("baz", "qux")].
But as I realized just now, this is an unrelated uncontroversial change: adding support for the <parenthesized joined table> variant defined in the spec.
This doesn't handle ((a NATURAL JOIN b)) just as we didn't handle ((SELECT ..)) derived tables, which I think is OK.
LGTM, thanks!
Oh wow, that is some headscratching syntax. I've never seen anyone combine the implicit and explicit syntaxes before! I wasn't even aware that was possible. Sigh.
Oh, good catch. I'm going to merge for now, but I'll investigate making a follow-on PR to support double parens. |
SELECT * FROM (((SELECT 1))) is just as valid as SELECT * FROM (SELECT 1). Add a test to ensure that we can parse the first form. Addresses a comment from apache#100.
Wait... I think we do support this! Unless I'm misunderstanding. See #108. |
I took a stab at fixing this in #109. Discussion to follow there. |
SELECT * FROM (((SELECT 1))) is just as valid as SELECT * FROM (SELECT 1). Add a test to ensure that we can parse the first form. Addresses a comment from apache#100.
Fix #83.
@nickolay this is everything, for the moment! Feel free to review/merge in any order. I'll take care of rebasing whatever winds up conflicting (though feel free to rebase yourself, if you're so inclined).