> Thanks for the response.
>
> you will note that one of the other responses point out that it's a
> known bug

I realized, yes.
I haven't known so far, either.

>
> The mix of qualified and unqualified field names is because it is only
> essential to qualify names where there is a potential confusion (ie
> field with the same name in more than one table), though I accept its
> better to qualify all names where more than one table is included in a
> select.

It's easier to read (at least for me and maybe for other people who
didn't write the statement, too) if you qualify all fields - once you
might enhance your database and the unqualified field might be a
fieldname in the other table, too.
In this case you have to work through all your statements of your app(s)
to find out if they're broken or not.

Luc.