Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On 15 May 2015 at 16:21, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> 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. 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

Dave Cramer

dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca