| From: | Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |
| Date: | 2011-10-30 22:17:35 |
| Message-ID: | CANcm6wYHiP4YMbJcUD=5e4QCG3mwOm2SHja2T0wmWzyCrt4SoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
<snip>
> "fails to not break anything else" category.
From what I've seen watching this list, you're usually right. :)
It looks like it's perfectly okay to write:
SELECT pg_class.* AS foo FROM pg_class;
(with or without the AS)
I don't know what the above actually means, but it stops SELECT
pg_class.* EXCLUDING(...) dead in its tracks. So, I'd have to break a
syntax (albeit silly?) that currently works to support this. :(
eric
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-30 22:19:45 | myProcLocks initialization |
| Previous Message | Darren Duncan | 2011-10-30 22:11:33 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |