On 10/30/2011 10:00 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:

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.


Surely it's only non-deterministic to the extent that '*' itself is non-deterministic. So your argument boils down to 'anything that enhances * is bad,' ISTM.

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."


That's fine, and it's a good policy. A good policy might well exclude use of a number of available features (e.g. one place I know bans doing joins with ',' instead of explicit join operators). But I don't think it helps us decide what to support.

The fact is that if you have 100 columns and want 95 of them, it's very tedious to have to specify them all, especially for ad hoc queries where the house SQL standards really don't matter that much. It's made more tedious by the fact that there is no real help in constructing the query. This gets particularly bad with views, which developers often seem to stuff with every available column that might be needed by some query instead of creating views tailored to particular queries. Not long ago annoyance with this prompted my to write a little utility function that would give me a query with all the columns specified so I could cut and paste it, and delete the columns I didn't want. (Another advantage is that the result is guaranteed typo free, which my typing certainly is not.) See <https://gist.github.com/818490>. It's far from perfect, but I still find myself using it several times a month, mainly for the very purpose intended by this suggested feature.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to