On 1 November 2011 00:14, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > On 10/30/2011 10:00 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: >> 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.
I couldn't agree more with Andrew's comment. What's good for an ad hoc psql query isn't congruent with what's good for your application queries. We could have " * EXCLUDING " and still say that it is undesirable in all the same contexts that " * " is undesirable. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
