Re: SQL0203 - Name xxxx is ambiguous, when using JOIN USING

Obviously, for my immediate needs, I switched to what would work.

But from what I read, USING should work. In fact, if it doesn't work like
this it's pretty much worthless. I could have sworn that I've done this in
the past, but perhaps not...

I much prefer the USING syntax, especially when dealing with composite
keys. I just don't often get to use it since my legacy tables have a
prefix on the column name.

I've opened a PMR and we'll see what IBM says.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:35 PM, John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I'm with Tom Stieger: The amount of effort put into getting USING to
work, if it can even be made to work at all (like him, I've never been
able to get it to work), is WAAAY more than just switching to the
explicit ON syntax already, which in my opinion isn't that much less
elegant than USING.

John Y.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.