| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | 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>, 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: | 2011-11-01 16:03:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20111101160323.GP24234@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* 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..
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alcione Benacchio | 2011-11-01 16:12:52 | OK |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-11-01 15:33:20 | Re: Hot Backup with rsync fails at pg_clog if under load |