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
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 |