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

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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 ..."?