Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 06:04:43PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Yeah, excellent question. It seems completely unnecessary, but it is
>> surely there in the syntax diagram.
> Probably because many Unicode representations are done with "U+"
> followed by 4-6 hexadecimal units, but "+" is problematic for other
> reasons (in some vendor's implementation)?
They could hardly ignore the conflict with the operator interpretation
for +. The committee has now cut themselves off from ever having a
standard operator named &, but I suppose they didn't think ahead to that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
