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

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.