Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?

From: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
To: Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>
Cc: David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
Date: 2011-10-30 19:38:01
Message-ID: 4EADA799.5090202@mark.mielke.cc (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Stupid question:

Is this just a display thing? Or does this have impact for things such 
as COUNT(*) vs COUNT(1)?

Is it "like a view, but on the fly"?

I'm found myself in the *occasional* (certainly not daily!) situation 
where such a feature might be useful, but each time I wonder about if 
there should be a better way, I realize that if I ever saw such a thing 
in production code it would be the first code I shot down. 1) Not 
standards compliant, 2) Not deterministic (i.e. a database change might 
cause my code to break), 3) Working around a problem that maybe 
shouldn't exist in the first place? It's a like buying a rug, so that 
nobody sees the scratches on the floor.

I can see the contention. :-)

If it existed, I would occasionally use it from the command line. I'm 
thinking three times a year. Certainly not daily. Heck, if it's more 
characters to type (than "select * ...") the number of times I would 
bother typing it are quite short. :-)

Cheers,

-- 
Mark Mielke<mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Eric RidgeDate: 2011-10-30 19:50:12
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
Previous:From: Darren DuncanDate: 2011-10-30 19:28:45
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group