On 15 May 2015 at 16:35, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Well our solution was to use ?? but that does mean we have to do some
extra parsing which in a perfect world wouldn't be necessary.
Dave Cramer
dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca
