Re: Proposal: SELECT * EXCLUDE (...) command
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Proposal: SELECT * EXCLUDE (...) command |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1964798.1767886929@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Proposal: SELECT * EXCLUDE (...) command (Hunaid Sohail <hunaidpgml@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hunaid Sohail <hunaidpgml@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 3:27 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote: >> This has been proposed before. You can see one such discussion here: >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CANcm6wbR3EG7t-G=Txy64Yt8nR6YbpzFRuTewJQ+kCq=rZ8M2A@mail.gmail.com > This looks like an older discussion focused mainly on syntax, scope, and > keyword concerns. There was some support for the feature, but no > implementation. One thing that I think has changed since that 2011 thread is that we've become far more aware that the SQL standard is a moving target. I would now resist adding something like this on the grounds that it's too likely to conflict with something the standards committee does down the road. They might standardize the same functionality with a different syntax, or they could invent some syntax involving EXCLUDING that conflicts enough that we can't support it alongside this. This has already happened to us --- the business with how named arguments for functions are written caused a lot of pain both for us and for our users. Admittedly, the fact that we now have a couple of project members who sit on that committee makes it less likely that we'd get blindsided in the same way again. But that doesn't mean I'm eager to get out front of the standard in places where this sort of conflict is foreseeable. In short: I'd recommend going and seeing if you can sell this idea to the SQL committee. We'd be much more likely to accept an implementation if the syntax got accepted by them. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: