From: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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 19:28:45 |
Message-ID: | 4EADA56D.3040302@darrenduncan.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> writes:
>> The real question to ask ourselves is, if Eric Ridge is willing to do all the
>> work to implement this feature, and the code quality is up to the community
>> standards and doesn't break anything else, then will the code be accepted?
>
> It's entirely possible that it will get bounced on standards-compliance
> grounds. 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.
>
> regards, tom lane
Well then we come up with a (SQL-level) syntax for the feature that doesn't
introduce new reserved keywords.
As I said before, the important thing is to have the feature, and that the exact
syntax is the main point to discuss.
Postgres already has a number of syntactic features that aren't in the SQL
standard and coexist, and so we add one of those.
-- Darren Duncan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Mielke | 2011-10-30 19:38:01 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |
Previous Message | Eric Ridge | 2011-10-30 19:26:45 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |