Re: Problem with ecpg

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Can someone comment on this patch?

>> This forbids ":" to be the second (or above) char in an operator.
>> Is there any situation where it should be?

It would surely be intolerable for ecpg to have different ideas about
what is an operator name than the postgres backend does. So I'm not
happy about patching ecpg this way without changing the backend.

However, we have already deprecated the ':' and ';' operators with
the intention of removing those operators in 7.1, and forbidding
those two characters entirely in operator names. So the problem
should go away in 7.1.

I haven't yet done the physical removal of ':' and ';' but it's on
the hit list...

regards, tom lane