2011/11/1 Eric Ridge <eeb...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> some other idea - but only for psql >> >> we can define a special values, that ensure a some necessary >> preexecution alchemy with entered query >> >> \pset star_exclude_names col1, col2, col3 >> \pset star_exclude_types xml, bytea, text(unlimited) >> > > Sure, something like that could be useful too. It might be confusing > to users if they forget that they set an exclusion list, but there's > probably ways to work around that. > > However, the nice thing about the feature being in SQL is that you can > use it from all clients, and even in other useful ways. COPY would be > an example (something I also do frequently): > > COPY (SELECT * EXCLUDING (a, b, c) FROM <big query>) TO 'somefile.csv' WITH > CSV; > > Right now, if you want to exclude a column, you have to list all the > others out manually, or just dump everything and deal with it in an > external tool. >
sorry, I don't accept it. I am able to understand your request for adhoc queries. But not for COPY. and if you need it - you can write C function. > I generally agree with everyone that says using this in application > code is a bad idea, but I don't think that's reason alone to reject > the idea on its face. I can accept a PostgreSQL extensions if there are no other way how do it effective. But it is not this case. > > eric > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
