On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Dave Cramer <p...@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
>> Well, if we were to agree this was a problem, we could introduce new,
>> less-problematic operator names and then eventually deprecate the old
>> ones. Personally, it wouldn't take a lot to convince me that if a
>> certain set of operator names is problematic for important connectors,
>> we should avoid using those and switch to other ones. I expect others
>> on this mailing list to insist that if the connectors don't work,
>> that's the connector drivers fault for coding their connectors wrong.
>> And maybe that's the right answer, but on the other hand, maybe it's a
>> little myopic. I think the discussion is worth having.
>
> In that case my vote is new operators. This has been a sore point for the
> JDBC driver
I guess JDBC has the same problem as Perl and JavaScript here: ?
signals a bind variable. The next question is, why isn't there some
escaping mechanism for that, like writing ?? or \? or something?
I ask because, you know, suppose you write this:
INSERT INTO foo VALUES ('How many pickled peppers did Peter Piper pick?');
Or alternatively this:
INSERT INTO foo VALUES ($$If Peter piper picked a peck of pickled
peppers, where's the peck of pickled peppers Peter Piper picked?$$);
Those have also got question marks in them. Do they also get
interpreted as bind variables?
I don't really want to take a violently strong position on this
without understanding what's really going on here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
