From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 20:43:25 |
Message-ID: | 4EADB6ED.10107@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/30/2011 04:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> 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.
Adding this rule doesn't appear to cause any complications:
target_el: '*' EXCLUDING '(' ')'
I'm not saying we need to do this, although there have been times when I
might have liked it, but I suspect it would not cause us any grammar
problems at least.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Darren Duncan | 2011-10-30 20:43:39 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |
Previous Message | Eric Ridge | 2011-10-30 20:27:51 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |