Re: RE : full featured alter table?

I agree 100%.

this makes very portable code, and usable libraries.

scott.marlowe wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 06:55:36PM +0200, Bruno BAGUETTE wrote:
>>
>>>Hello everybody,
>>>
>>>
>>>>The one thing we don't have that I think would be useful is a
>>>>way to re-order the columns in a table. Maybe it's just me,
>>>>but I tend to want column to appear in a specific order, and
>>>>the only way you can accomplish this today is by re-creating
>>>>the entire table.
>>>
>>>I agree with Jim, this would be a 'cool but not mandatory' feature ! :-)
>>>
>>>This feature is not mandatory since I avoid the use SELECT * FROM...
>>>(and I forbid the use of SELECT * to my subordinates).
>>
>>
>>99.999% of the time, if you put SELECT * into code, you should be strung
>>up by your own entrails. But do you mean to tell me that when you're
>>testing stuff on the command line you never, ever use SELECT *?
>
>
> I wouldn't go that far. I build updatable views, select * from them,
> cycle through the fields getting name / type and build generic forms to
> let the user edit / insert new records.
>
> It allows me to reuse the same basic chunk of code over and over.
>
> Of course, it's select * on a view, not a table, so I set the order when I
> create the view.
>
> Now, using select * and ASSUMING the order of the variables in your
> application code is a punishable offense, but as long as you determine the
> name / type of the fields after the select * it's not so bad.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>