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

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

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Darren DuncanDate: 2011-10-30 20:43:39
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
Previous:From: Eric RidgeDate: 2011-10-30 20:27:51
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group