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

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, Marcin Mańk <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com>, Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(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: 2011-11-01 16:24:20
Message-ID: CAFj8pRButqSCthq4gRCjRBn_m9A++vz_3kZBGWKWcK_S3icQ8Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2011/11/1 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
> * Marti Raudsepp (marti(at)juffo(dot)org) wrote:
>> Unfortunately it's far less efficient. Fields would be truncated in
>> psql, so full values are still detoasted and transmitted over the
>> network.
>
> I'm thinking that we're not too worried about performance of ad-hoc
> psql queries..?  At least, for the queries that I'd use this for, I
> wouldn't be worried about that.
>
> The various syntax proposals do seem overly long for this, however..  I
> was just wondering about something like:
>
> select ~* blah, blah, blah FROM ...
>
> Strikes me as pretty unlikely that making a new 'version' of * like this
> is going to break anything or be broken by the SQL standard.  Note- I
> haven't looked at the * production or tried to do anything w/ gram.y to
> support this yet, but it's a heck of a lot shorter..
>

some other idea - but only for psql

we can define a special values, that ensure a some necessary
preexecution alchemy with entered query

\pset star_exclude_names col1, col2, col3
\pset star_exclude_types xml, bytea, text(unlimited)

select * from ...

1) get result descriptor from query
2) update a query to SELECT expected_columns FROM (original query) x
3) eval new query

point1 1,2,3 will be transparent for user and it has not any performance issue

Regards

Pavel

>        Thanks,
>
>                Stephen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk6wGEsACgkQrzgMPqB3kii8fwCeM0TR8eeVsETjs8TEfi04mDvs
> nwEAoJ1I58IGUdRjJvRZPBaYLkQF3PiF
> =BPha
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Eric Ridge 2011-11-01 16:51:46 Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-11-01 16:14:06 Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer