On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Dave Cramer <pg@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.
