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

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

From: Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>
To: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
Cc: Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(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: 2011-10-31 00:25:42
Message-ID: 4EADEB06.8080307@darrenduncan.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Mark Mielke wrote:
> On 10/30/2011 03:50 PM, Eric Ridge wrote:
>> Changes of omission can break your code just as easily.
> 
> I think I wasn't as clear as I intended. In many ways, I think use of 
> "*" in the first place is wrong for code (despite that I do it as well). 
> Therefore, "* EXCLUDING (...)" would also be wrong. It comes to "does 
> the code know what it wants?"
<snip>
> 
> "select *" is not deterministic from a programming perspective.

I understand what you're saying.  However, we're stuck with * because it is in 
the standard and is widely used, and if we have * anyway, then the exclusion 
proposal is just an enhancement to that.  So there is no reason to reject the 
complementary columns feature because of the problems with "select *"; you might 
as well argue to get rid of "select *". -- Darren Duncan

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-10-31 00:56:53
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
Previous:From: Christopher BrowneDate: 2011-10-31 00:16:47
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?

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