I notice PG doesn't allow shorthand column labels -- it requires the
'AS' operand.

SELECT col1 foo, ...; -> ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo"

For compatibility with other databases, what objections might be argued
in allowing this syntax in the future?

On the 'pros' side I think it eases migration to PG, shortens code, is
similar syntax to shorthand table aliases, and some users might argue it
has become defacto syntax among DBs.

Regards,
Ken



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Ken Johanson wrote:
> I notice PG doesn't allow shorthand column labels -- it requires the
> 'AS' operand.
>
> SELECT col1 foo, ...; -> ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo"
>
> For compatibility with other databases, what objections might be argued
> in allowing this syntax in the future?
>
> On the 'pros' side I think it eases migration to PG, shortens code, is
> similar syntax to shorthand table aliases, and some users might argue it
> has become defacto syntax among DBs.
>
> Regards,
> Ken

Briefly discussed a couple of weeks ago.

See http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...1/msg00089.php

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Paul Lambert wrote:
> Ken Johanson wrote:
>> I notice PG doesn't allow shorthand column labels -- it requires the
>> 'AS' operand.
>>
>> SELECT col1 foo, ...; -> ERROR: syntax error at or near "foo"
>
> Briefly discussed a couple of weeks ago.
>
> See http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...1/msg00089.php
>


Interesting thread(s)!

What I didn't see discussed was the possibility of making a server
and/or session option, where we could elect to turn-off the old behavior
(PG specific behavior) and enable the standard/shorthand syntax. Users
need a migration path.

I personally cant ever see using those PGisms/features and would choose
to enable the standard mode. I think I'd have fewer compatibility problems.

Ken



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Ken Johanson wrote:
> Interesting thread(s)!
>
> What I didn't see discussed was the possibility of making a server
> and/or session option, where we could elect to turn-off the old behavior
> (PG specific behavior) and enable the standard/shorthand syntax. Users
> need a migration path.
>
> I personally cant ever see using those PGisms/features and would choose
> to enable the standard mode. I think I'd have fewer compatibility problems.
>
> Ken

What was discussed is that the AS keyword is required because of the way
the interpreter parses the commands.

With the example given, how does it know that 1::character varying isn't
casting to a character field with an alias of varying or a character
varying field with no alias?

If there was simply a switch to turn the requirement on or off that's
not going to stop things from breaking - the postfix operators still
need to be picked up somehow, it's a technical limitation rather than a
"let's just be difficult and be incompatible with other dbms's" limitation

I think it would be nice as well, I had to migrate a system that didn't
bother putting AS in any of it's views/stored procedures etc and went
through this pain - but I think having to change everything was worth it
to make sure all my scripts were correctly written and free from
possible misinterpretation.

My thoughts anyway.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster