| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Nikhil Benesch <nikhil(dot)benesch(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Appetite for `SELECT ... EXCLUDE`? | 
| Date: | 2022-11-18 20:18:44 | 
| Message-ID: | 2262039.1668802724@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
Nikhil Benesch <nikhil(dot)benesch(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Both DuckDB and Snowflake, as of recently, support a nonstandard `EXCLUDE`
> clause in the SELECT list to allow excluding fields from a wildcard [0] [1].
> Example from the DuckDB announcement [2]:
> SELECT * EXCLUDE (jar_jar_binks, midichlorians) FROM star_wars
> Is there any appetite for adding this feature to PostgreSQL?
This has been discussed before and not gone anywhere, e.g. [1] [2].
I think there have been more threads but that was all I found in a
quick archive search.  Anyway, as those threads illustrate, there is a
lot of room for variation in how you spell it, where you can write it,
and so on.  My own inclination is to not do anything here until/unless
the SQL committee standardizes something, because there's too much
risk of finding ourselves incompatible with the standard.
regards, tom lane
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/d51371a2-f221-1cf3-4a7d-b2242d4dafdb%40gmail.com
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CANcm6wbR3EG7t-G%3DTxy64Yt8nR6YbpzFRuTewJQ%2BkCq%3DrZ8M2A%40mail.gmail.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikhil Benesch | 2022-11-18 20:29:25 | Re: Appetite for `SELECT ... EXCLUDE`? | 
| Previous Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2022-11-18 20:08:35 | Re: Seeking practice recommendation: is there ever a use case to have two or more superusers? |