Re: SQL feature requests

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Michael Glaesemann" <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, "Ben Tilly" <btilly(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL feature requests
Date: 2007-08-23 16:50:44
Message-ID: 8684.1187887844@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I highly doubt the spec would ever conflict with allowing the user to elide
> the aliases given that Oracle (and others?) have always allowed this. Moreover
> if it's been 15 years without them adding it surely that argues we can be
> pretty sure they won't add them?

The $64 question in my mind is exactly why hasn't the spec allowed this?
It's clear that they have gone out of their way to not allow it, and
I think it's unwise to say "oh let's do it" without understanding why not.

> This seems like a particularly petty case compared to a lot of other
> extensions we do allow.

That's exactly the problem. Most of our other extensions are justified
by some significant capability gain. This isn't --- it provides zero
new functionality, and the "convenience" factor amounts to the saving of
one keystroke (ok, maybe two if you insist on a space before the alias).
Pretty weak argument...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-08-23 16:55:07 Re: SQL feature requests
Previous Message Michael Glaesemann 2007-08-23 16:47:39 Re: SQL feature requests