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

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

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>
Cc: Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
Date: 2011-10-31 02:00:23
Message-ID: CAFNqd5VknLDUeYZBP=_TaRHFfmeE54Xe=WnLXtuMi_VxO_zZSQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
There is legitimate reason to reject this on the basis of nondeterminism.

While we are surely obliged to "hold our noses" and support "SELECT *", as:
A) The SQL standard obliges us, and
B) People already use it a lot,

Neither of those factors hold true for the EXCLUDING notion.  So all things
are decidedly not equal.

By all means I find it an interesting feature, but that shouldn't be
mistaken for necessarily being a desirable feature.

I don't think I wish it.  We're telling our developers not to use "select
*", and I don't think having "select * except " would change that policy,
beyond requiring us to waste time explaining :

"No, we're not changing policy.  The fact that PGDG added this to 9.2 does
*not* imply our policy was wrong."

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-10-31 03:13:51
Subject: Re: myProcLocks initialization
Previous:From: Eric B. RidgeDate: 2011-10-31 01:09:07
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?

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