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