From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2011-10-30 20:09:04 |
Message-ID: | 26596.1320005344@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> wrote:
>> 2) Not deterministic (i.e. a database change might cause my code to break),
> Okay, I'm inventing a use-case here, but say you have a "users" table
> with various bits of metadata about the user, including password.
> Maybe, regardless of database changes, you never want the password
> column returned: SELECT * EXCLUDING (password) FROM tbl_users;
Well, here you're not only inventing a use-case, but you're making a lot
of contrary-to-fact-and-to-SQL-spec assumptions about when the * notation
gets expanded. This thing wouldn't be useful that way in views.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Eric Ridge | 2011-10-30 20:27:51 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-30 20:03:57 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |