On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 12 December 2016 at 04:59, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.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.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to