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

[Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.