Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Greg Sabino Mullane |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) |
Date | |
Msg-id | 3a488a49b408c6d1085ee8ba1e93950e@biglumber.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) (Bruno Harbulot <bruno@distributedmatter.net>) |
Responses |
Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)
Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
-----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 passing the problem onto connectors, > libraries and ultimately application developers is the right thing to do > here. 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... > Recommending that all drivers implement \? as a semi-standard workaround is > actually a much more difficult problem than it seems: it requires following > the development of each project, making the case to each community > (assuming they're all open source), and reasonable in-depth knowledge of > their respective implementation, also assuming that \? won't cause further > problems there (of course, all that is easier if you're already working on > that particular project). That's actually where we are right now. And it's not really our job to make the case to each community - it is the responsibility of each project to solve the problem, presumably because of pressure from their users. The "\?" would only be a recommendation (but a pretty good one - the Perl folk talked a good bit about the best solution and researched if \? had the potential to cause any other problems). > Even according to what you're saying this issue has required a first > workaround back in 2008, and another one earlier this year, probably due to > concerns that weren't spotted when implementing the first workaround (this > also presumably requires users to run a fairly recent version of this > connector now). True enough regarding the two changes. But the system worked well, in that someone had a problem, raised a bug, and it got fixed. I'm not sure I see the point about requiring recent versions of the connector - that's true for lots of bug fixes and features. This one at least is fairly optional with many existing workarounds (e.g. use $1, quote things in a different way). > (It looks like PHP/PDO is another one to add to the list: > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=62493, it's been open for almost 3 years.) Some days I almost feel sorry for PHP. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201505191503 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAlVbiRUACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjHYgCg1GfnDrdefkoedpigxYiuBMFX 794An3XWPXA0dVRk0JI6/Ik5Jb7SOLO7 =Amfe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
pgsql-hackers by date: