Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
От | Darren Duncan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4EADEB06.8080307@darrenduncan.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>) |
Ответы |
Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Mielke wrote: > On 10/30/2011 03:50 PM, Eric Ridge wrote: >> Changes of omission can break your code just as easily. > > I think I wasn't as clear as I intended. In many ways, I think use of > "*" in the first place is wrong for code (despite that I do it as well). > Therefore, "* EXCLUDING (...)" would also be wrong. It comes to "does > the code know what it wants?" <snip> > > "select *" is not deterministic from a programming perspective. I understand what you're saying. However, we're stuck with * because it is in the standard and is widely used, and if we have * anyway, then the exclusion proposal is just an enhancement to that. So there is no reason to reject the complementary columns feature because of the problems with "select *"; you might as well argue to get rid of "select *". -- Darren Duncan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: