| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Geoff Winkless <gwinkless(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonb problematic operators |
| Date: | 2016-12-13 01:26:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ2Aig-zSrasH9Ei1BgDpws9-n0PVEWk9GCWzt5DZa+bg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On 12 December 2016 at 04:59, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I didn't realise Pg's use of ? was that old, so thanks. That makes
>> offering alternatives much less appealing.
>
> One option might be for Postgres to define duplicate operator names
> using ¿ or something else. I think ¿ is a good choice because it's a
> common punctuation mark in spanish so it's probably not hard to find
> on a lot of keyboards or hard to find instructions on how to type one.
>
> There is always a risk in allowing redundant syntaxes though. For
> example people running grep to find all uses of an operator will miss
> the alternate spelling. There may even be security implications for
> that though to be honest that seems unlikely in this case.
Are you sure that using a non-ASCII character is a good idea for an
in-core operator? I would think no.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-12-13 01:27:12 | Re: background sessions |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-12-13 01:23:16 | Re: pg_background contrib module proposal |