2011/10/31 Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 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 :
It can carry some new problems with cache - actually we don't need
rebuild views after additing column to table or view
> "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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jun Ishiduka||Date: 2011-10-31 04:11:19|
|Subject: Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-10-31 03:26:08|
|Subject: Re: myProcLocks initialization|