Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 20:03:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> In particular, I don't think it's acceptable to introduce a
>> new reserved keyword for this --- that would fall under the "fails to
>> not break anything else" category.

> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if we choose the word carefully
> (which is why I chose EXCLUDING), I think we're okay?  EXCLUDING is
> already defined as an "ordinary key word".

Yeah, it's unreserved so it doesn't break use of the same name for
columns or functions.  I'm not sure that you can make the syntax work
the way you suggest without bumping up its reserved-ness level.
That's just a gut feeling, I've not tried it ... but the proposed
syntax sure looks a lot like a call to a function named EXCLUDING.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-10-30 20:09:04
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
Previous:From: Eric RidgeDate: 2011-10-30 19:50:12
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group