On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Jordan Gigov <colad...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's not a good idea to expect everyone else to make for workarounds > for problems you choose to create.
True. I actually kinda agree that the use of ? wasn't a great choice here, precisely because a number of drivers do use it to indicate a placeholder. However, I also think that it was done without realizing that it was going to create problems. Your phrasing implies that we did that on purpose just to mess with users, which isn't true. As Geoff says, you don't have to use the operators; you could use the equivalent functions instead. Every operator just gets turned into a function call internally, so this is always possible. It would also be smart for driver authors who use ? to indicate a placeholder to also provide some way of escaping it. There are plenty of perfectly valid PostgreSQL queries that include a ? as something other than a driver-interpreted placeholder, and if driver authors have failed to foresee that, it's not entirely our fault. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
