Hannu Krosing writes: > > AFAICT, this patch does not buy us anything at all. It's just a different > > spelling of existing functionality. We have never done that before. > > what about DROP COLUMN - this is also just a different spelling for > > SELECT INTO, migrate all constraints, DROP OLD TABLE, RENAME.
No, because DROP COLUMN preserves dependent objects. > > We cannot possibly leave this patch as is. People expect in-place column > > changes. > > Does SQL spec even require that SELECT * always returns columns in the > same order ? Yes: b) Otherwise, the <select list> "*" is equivalent to a <value expression> sequence in which each <value expression> is a column reference that references a column of T and each column of T is referenced exactly once. The columns are referenced in the ascending sequence of their ordinal position within T. > I don't think that relational model assigns any 'order' to columns. Correct, but SQL is not the relational model or vice versa. > BTW, SELECT * is just a different spelling of existing functionality ;) No, there is no other way to get a complete list of columns. (Hard-coding does not count.) -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match