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?"

"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

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to