| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |
| Date: | 2011-10-31 02:00:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAFNqd5VknLDUeYZBP=_TaRHFfmeE54Xe=WnLXtuMi_VxO_zZSQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
There is legitimate reason to reject this on the basis of nondeterminism.
While we are surely obliged to "hold our noses" and support "SELECT *", as:
A) The SQL standard obliges us, and
B) People already use it a lot,
Neither of those factors hold true for the EXCLUDING notion. So all things
are decidedly not equal.
By all means I find it an interesting feature, but that shouldn't be
mistaken for necessarily being a desirable feature.
I don't think I wish it. We're telling our developers not to use "select
*", and I don't think having "select * except " would change that policy,
beyond requiring us to waste time explaining :
"No, we're not changing policy. The fact that PGDG added this to 9.2 does
*not* imply our policy was wrong."
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-31 03:13:51 | Re: myProcLocks initialization |
| Previous Message | Eric B. Ridge | 2011-10-31 01:09:07 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |