[dstola]

Not a fan since proposal would do an implicit join on foreign keys rather than explicit join on the columns. If you know the schemas its great, but would add an extra step to check FKs on the tables otherwise

In general explicit > implicit, IMO

[cryptonector]

This is why we don't use `*` in production SQL. It's also why we try to avoid NATURAL JOIN. USING is OK if you only have two table sources, but you don't always get to have same-name columns on both tables.

This syntax seems pretty clear and explicit, but with an indirection. Indirection != implicit. The intent is quite explicit.

Using ON also is problematic in that you might think while reading a query that the JOIN is on FOREIGN KEY columns, but... maybe not -- without looking at the schema, you can't tell. JOIN FOREIGN has a similar problem: the intent is crystal clear, but now you have to go look at the schema if you want to know which columns that refers to. Normally one would write a comment on the ON, but comments can rot.

Now, making SQL more expressive isn't necessarily a good thing. SQL is already very expressive. But making it more expressive in ways that yield clearer queries is definitely worth considering.

One very nice aspect of JOIN FOREIGN is that because RDBMSes generally require corresponding indices on those columns to optimize ON UPDATE / ON DELETE constraint processing, seeing "JOIN FOREIGN" in a query instantly lets you know that there must be an appropriate index, while ON might be causing a full table scan or query materialization and you'd have to examine the query plan carefully.