Jim Nasby-5 wrote > On 10/3/14, 4:02 PM, David G Johnston wrote: >> Should we also allow: >> >> SELECT >> , col1 >> , col2 >> , col3 >> FROM ... >> >> ? > I would say yes, if we're going to do this. I don't see it being any worse > than trailing commas. > > If we are going to do this, we need to do it EVERYWHERE. > > FWIW, the way I normally "work around" this problem is: > > SELECT > blah > , foo > , bar > , baz > > In my experience, it's quite uncommon to mess with the first item in the > list, which mostly eliminates the issue. A missing leading comma is also > MUCH easier to spot than a missing trailing comma. > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
> pgsql-hackers@ > ) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers Jim Nasby-5 wrote > On 10/3/14, 4:02 PM, David G Johnston wrote: >> Should we also allow: >> >> SELECT >> , col1 >> , col2 >> , col3 >> FROM ... >> >> ? > I would say yes, if we're going to do this. I don't see it being any worse > than trailing commas. > > If we are going to do this, we need to do it EVERYWHERE. > > FWIW, the way I normally "work around" this problem is: > > SELECT > blah > , foo > , bar > , baz > > In my experience, it's quite uncommon to mess with the first item in the > list, which mostly eliminates the issue. A missing leading comma is also > MUCH easier to spot than a missing trailing comma. We might as well allow a final trailing (or initial leading) comma on a values list at the same time: VALUES (...), (...), (...), ; David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Trailing-comma-support-in-SELECT-statements-tp5821613p5823365.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers