[Sorry for being late to the party, travelling does take away too much
time sometimes.]
On 19.05.2015 21:04, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Bruno Harbulot asked for a devil's advocate by saying:
>> My main point was that this is not specific to JDBC. Considering that even
>> PostgreSQL's own ECPG is
> available as soon as 9.6 came out. But from the perspective of a driver
> author who has to support queries written by other people, the problem
> would not be gone for at least ten years more. Changing the driver's
> behavior sounds like a more practical solution.
Even if it means breaking th
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 05/20/2015 03:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The operator for tintervals can be traced back at least to
>> Postgres v4r2 (1994), which is the oldest tarball I have at
>> hand. Most of the current list are geometric operators that
>> were added by Tom Lockhart in 1997.
> W
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> When did the SQL standard add any mention of ?
It's in SQL92. I don't have a copy of SQL89, or whatever the previous
spec was, to look at.
(So you could argue that Yu and Chen should've removed ? from the set of
allowed operator characters when they grafted SQL syntax o
On 05/20/2015 03:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Cramer writes:
Notably absent from the discussion is ODBC upon which JDBC was modelled and
probably predates any use of ? as an operator
It would be a mistake to imagine that operators containing '?' are some
johnny-come-lately. The operator fo
Dave Cramer writes:
> Notably absent from the discussion is ODBC upon which JDBC was modelled and
> probably predates any use of ? as an operator
It would be a mistake to imagine that operators containing '?' are some
johnny-come-lately. The operator for tintervals can be traced back
at least
Dave Cramer writes:
> Back to the issue at hand. Does anyone have a recommendation for a
> replacement operator besides ?
The bikeshedding potential here might be the worst part of the whole
thing. Still, if we can agree on reasonable substitute names, I wouldn't
be against it, even with the hug
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we should be more focused on this part of the issue. It seems
> to me that it's a good idea for connectors to have an escaping
> mechanism. Pretty much any syntax that supports funny characters that
> do magical things should also ha
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Janes writes:
> > What if something like this was made to work?
> > select '{"3":5}'::jsonb operator("pg_catalog"."?") '3';
> > (Where the double quotes around the ? would be tolerated, which they
> > currently are not)
>
> > Is there a r
Jeff Janes writes:
> What if something like this was made to work?
> select '{"3":5}'::jsonb operator("pg_catalog"."?") '3';
> (Where the double quotes around the ? would be tolerated, which they
> currently are not)
> Is there a reason it can't be made to work?
It could be made to work, I'm su
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> What if something like this was made to work?
>
> select '{"3":5}'::jsonb operator("pg_catalog"."?") '3';
>
> (Where the double quotes around the ? would be tolerated, which they
> currently are not)
>
> Is there a reason it can't be made to
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 May 2015 at 16:21, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>> > Not sure what the point of this is: as you indicated the ship has
>> sailed so
>> > to speak
>>
>> Well, if we were to agree this
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Bruno Harbulot
wrote:
> Users of question mark operators are already admitting their application and
> code isn't portable (since they are specific to PostgreSQL and its
> extensions). The problem has more to do with how the other tools around
> handle these custom
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:50 PM, David G. Johnston <
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Bruno Harbulot <
>> br...@distributedmatter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> While I can imagine a Java PostgreSQL dr
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
> Actually the issue is what to do about a number of connectors which use a
> fairly standard '?' as a placeholder.
> Notably absent from the discussion is ODBC upon which JDBC was modelled
> and probably predates any use of ? as an operator
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:50 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Bruno Harbulot <
> br...@distributedmatter.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> While I can imagine a Java PostgreSQL driver that would use the libpq
>> syntax, I can't see it being able to h
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane
wrote:
>
> If you are running into situations
> where you have question mark operators in your queries, you have already
> lost
> the query abstraction battle. There will be no seamless switching if you
> are using jsonb, hstore, ltree, etc.
>
On 19 May 2015 at 19:18, Jan de Visser wrote:
> On May 19, 2015 09:31:32 PM Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > Jan de Visser wrote:
> > >> Well, one could argue that it *is* their problem, as they should be
> using
> > >> the standard Postgres way for placeholders, which is $1, $2, $3...
> > >
> > >
On May 19, 2015 09:31:32 PM Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Jan de Visser wrote:
> >> Well, one could argue that it *is* their problem, as they should be using
> >> the standard Postgres way for placeholders, which is $1, $2, $3...
> >
> > Shirley you are joking: Many products use JDBC as an abstract
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
>
> While I can imagine a Java PostgreSQL driver that would use the libpq
> syntax, I can't see it being able to have any useful sort of
> half-compatibility with JDBC, whether it mimics its interfaces or not. I'm
> not sure it would be very
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:50 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> Gavin Flower wrote:
>>
>> > I prefer the $1 approach, others can't use that, and there are
>> > situations where I could not either.
>> >
>> > So,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Jan de Visser wrote:
>> Well, one could argue that it *is* their problem, as they should be using
>> the standard Postgres way for placeholders, which is $1, $2, $3...
> Shirley you are joking: Many products use JDBC as an abstraction layer
>
On 19 May 2015 at 16:36, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Gavin Flower wrote:
>
> > I prefer the $1 approach, others can't use that, and there are
> > situations where I could not either.
> >
> > So, how about defaulting to the '?' approach, but have a method
> > to explicitly set the mode - to switch to
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Gavin Flower wrote:
>
> > I prefer the $1 approach, others can't use that, and there are
> > situations where I could not either.
> >
> > So, how about defaulting to the '?' approach, but have a method
> > to explicitly set the mode - to s
Gavin Flower wrote:
> I prefer the $1 approach, others can't use that, and there are
> situations where I could not either.
>
> So, how about defaulting to the '?' approach, but have a method
> to explicitly set the mode - to switch to using '$'?
Are you suggesting that we implement something ot
On 20/05/15 07:37, Jan de Visser wrote:
On May 19, 2015 07:04:56 PM Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Bruno Harbulot asked for a devil's advocate by saying:
My main point was that this is not specific to JDBC. Considering that even
PostgreSQL's own ECPG is affected, the issue goes probably deeper than
On May 19, 2015 07:04:56 PM Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Bruno Harbulot asked for a devil's advocate by saying:
> > My main point was that this is not specific to JDBC. Considering that even
> > PostgreSQL's own ECPG is affected, the issue goes probably deeper than it
> > seems. I'm just not convin
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane
wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Bruno Harbulot asked for a devil's advocate by saying:
> > My main point was that this is not specific to JDBC. Considering that
> even
> > PostgreSQL's own ECPG is affected, t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> I did find some alternatives discussed a couple of years back, like
> {postgres qm} and ; the later simply being to allow the
> operator to be quoted inside "operator()"
Yes, we (DBD::Pg) looked at using at some of the JDBC-ish alternatives
On 19 May 2015 at 15:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" writes:
> > Dave Cramer opined:
> >> It would seem that choosing ? for operators was ill advised; I'm not
> >> convinced that deprecating them is a bad idea. If we start now, in 5
> years
> >> they should be all but gone
>
> > Ha h
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane
wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> Dave Cramer opined:
> > It would seem that choosing ? for operators was ill advised; I'm not
> > convinced that deprecating them is a bad idea. If we start now, in 5
> years
On 05/19/2015 02:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Mike Blackwell writes:
See for example
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/text.102/b14218/cqoper.htm#i997330,
Table 3-1, third row, showing the precedence of '?'. Further down the
page, under "Fuzzy" see "Backward Compatibility Syntax".
If I'm reading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Bruno Harbulot asked for a devil's advocate by saying:
> My main point was that this is not specific to JDBC. Considering that even
> PostgreSQL's own ECPG is affected, the issue goes probably deeper than it
> seems. I'm just not convinced that p
"Greg Sabino Mullane" writes:
> Dave Cramer opined:
>> It would seem that choosing ? for operators was ill advised; I'm not
>> convinced that deprecating them is a bad idea. If we start now, in 5 years
>> they should be all but gone
> Ha ha ha ha ha! That's a good one. We still have clients on Po
Ah. I see. Thanks for the clarification.
__
*Mike Blackwell | Technical Analyst, Distribution Services/Rollout
Management | RR Donnelley*
1750 Wallace Ave | St Charles, IL 60174-3401
Office: 630.313.7818
mike.black
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Dave Cramer opined:
> It would seem that choosing ? for operators was ill advised; I'm not
> convinced that deprecating them is a bad idea. If we start now, in 5 years
> they should be all but gone
Ha ha ha ha ha! That's a good one. We still ha
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Blackwell writes:
> > See for example
> > http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/text.102/b14218/cqoper.htm#i997330,
> > Table 3-1, third row, showing the precedence of '?'. Further down the
> > page, under "Fuzzy" see "Backward Compatibility
Mike Blackwell writes:
> See for example
> http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/text.102/b14218/cqoper.htm#i997330,
> Table 3-1, third row, showing the precedence of '?'. Further down the
> page, under "Fuzzy" see "Backward Compatibility Syntax".
If I'm reading that right, that isn't a SQL-level
See for example
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/text.102/b14218/cqoper.htm#i997330,
Table 3-1, third row, showing the precedence of '?'. Further down the
page, under "Fuzzy" see "Backward Compatibility Syntax".
_
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Mike Blackwell
wrote:
> A Google search suggests Oracle 9.x supports a unary '?' operator (fuzzy
> match), so the use of '?' in an operator name is not without precedent.
>
>
Interesting. Do you have any specific link? I'm probably not using the
right Google searc
Dave Cramer
dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca
On 19 May 2015 at 13:15, Mike Blackwell wrote:
> A Google search suggests Oracle 9.x supports a unary '?' operator (fuzzy
> match), so the use of '?' in an operator name is not without precedent.
>
Interesting argument. There is
A Google search suggests Oracle 9.x supports a unary '?' operator (fuzzy
match), so the use of '?' in an operator name is not without precedent.
__
*Mike Blackwell | Technical Analyst, Distribution Services/Rollout
Ma
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Bruno Harbulot <
> br...@distributedmatter.net>wrote:
>
> >> In the discussion on the OpenJDK JDBC list two years ago
> >> (
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdbc-spec-d
On 19 May 2015 at 10:23, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Bruno Harbulot <
> br...@distributedmatter.net>wrote:
>
> >> In the discussion on the OpenJDK JDBC list two years ago
> >> (
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdbc-spec-discuss/2
David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Bruno Harbulot
> wrote:
>> In the discussion on the OpenJDK JDBC list two years ago
>> (
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdbc-spec-discuss/2013-February/50.html
>> ),
>> Lance Andersen said "There is nothing in the SQL s
On 18 May 2015 at 18:49, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Bruno Harbulot <
> br...@distributedmatter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > In that case my vote is new operators. This has been a sore point for
>>
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> > In that case my vote is new operators. This has been a sore point for
>> the
>> > JDBC driver
>>
>> Um, no, new operators is a bad idea. Question marks are used by h
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane
wrote:
>
> > In that case my vote is new operators. This has been a sore point for the
> > JDBC driver
>
> Um, no, new operators is a bad idea. Question marks are used by hstore,
> json, geometry, and who knows what else. I think the onus is s
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane
wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's not a good solution as '??' is a perfectly valid operator. ISTR
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> FTR, Perl's DBD::Pg lets you do this:
> $dbh->{pg_placeholder_dollaronly} = 1; # disable ? placeholders
You can also simply escape placeholders in DBD::Pg with a backslash:
$dbh->prepare(q{SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE ls
On 05/15/2015 04:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
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?
FTR, Perl's DBD::Pg lets you do this:
$dbh->{pg
Bruno Harbulot writes:
> That said, I'd still suggest providing new operators and deprecating the
> ones containing a question mark if possible. (There are 8 distinct operator
> names like this: "?-", "?&", "?", "?#", "?||", "?-|", "?|" and "".)
There are more in contrib ...
Bruno Harbulot wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>>> 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.
It seems like maybe
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On 15 May 2015 at 16:44, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 15 May 2015 at 16:41, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>>> >> I don't really want to take a violently strong position on this
>>> >> with
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
> >> 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 ha
On 15 May 2015 at 16:44, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
> On 15 May 2015 at 16:41, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>> >> I don't really want to take a violently strong position on this
>> >> without understanding what's really going on here.
>> >>
>> > Well o
On 15 May 2015 at 16:41, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
> >> 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
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>> 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
On 15 May 2015 at 16:35, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Dave Cramer 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 t
> As far, as I can tell, question mark operators are also incompatible
> with PostgreSQL's ECPG when using dynamic SQL.
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ecpg-dynamic.html
> (I'm pasting an example at the end of this message, tried with a
> PostgreSQL 9.4 server.)
Indeed it is. The q
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Dave Cramer 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 nam
On 15 May 2015 at 16:21, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > Not sure what the point of this is: as you indicated the ship has sailed
> so
> > to speak
>
> Well, if we were to agree this was a problem, we could introduce new,
> less-problematic operator n
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
> Not sure what the point of this is: as you indicated the ship has sailed so
> to speak
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. Personall
Not sure what the point of this is: as you indicated the ship has sailed so
to speak
Dave Cramer
dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca
On 15 May 2015 at 15:14, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been trying to use the new JSONB format using JDBC, and ran into
> trouble wit
64 matches
Mail list logo
