| From: | Eric Ridge <eebbrr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 19:26:45 |
| Message-ID: | CANcm6wYEA0sT9GAi-P4aqkJJohEroD5oyxAgDhvpUjsC0sTGpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> It's entirely possible that it will get bounced on standards-compliance
> grounds.
And that's a perfectly valid reason to reject it.
> 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.
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". And it's new use in this
situation seems to be completely unambiguous, such that you'd still be
able to use "excluding" everywhere you already could.
You know more about the grammar than I (or probably most anyone), so
I'm wondering why you think it might need to be a "reserved keyword"?
Alternatively, would it be okay to use an existing reserved keyword?
eric
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darren Duncan | 2011-10-30 19:28:45 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |
| Previous Message | Darren Duncan | 2011-10-30 19:21:28 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |