Geoff Winkless writes:
> To look at this from the other angle, is there a reason why the jsonb
> indexes don't work with the jsonb_ functions but only with the
> operators? Is this something that could be changed easily?
Yes. No. However, if you're desperate, you could
On 16 December 2016 at 09:35, Craig Ringer wrote:
> so it would be consistent with that to use ?? as a literal ? in the
> output query.
>
> This is also what PgJDBC does, per
> https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/statement.html . So
> it's consistent .
"Me too".
On 16 December 2016 at 17:08, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/12/2016 05:09, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Does PDO let you double question marks to escape them, writing ?? or
>> \? instead of ? or anything like that?
>>
>> If not, I suggest that you (a) submit a postgres patch
Hi,
On 12/12/2016 05:09, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Does PDO let you double question marks to escape them, writing ?? or
> \? instead of ? or anything like that?
>
> If not, I suggest that you (a) submit a postgres patch adding
> alternative operator names for ? and ?|, and (b) submit a PDO patch to
Nico Williams writes:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:26:24AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> One option might be for Postgres to define duplicate operator names
>>> using ¿ or something else.
>> Are you
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:26:24AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> On 12 December 2016 at 04:59, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> I didn't realise Pg's use of ? was that old, so thanks. That
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On 12 December 2016 at 04:59, Craig Ringer 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
On 12 Dec. 2016 22:22, "Merlin Moncure" wrote:
If we really wanted to fix this, maybe the right way
to think about the problem is a highly reduced character set and a
pre-processor or an extension.
I'm pretty OK with expecting client drivers not to be stupid and offer
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> PgJDBC allows you to write ??, which is ugly, but tolerable, since the
> JDBC spec doesn't have an escape syntax for it.
This is the core problem; *JDBC* is busted. SQL reserves words but
not punctuation marks so any
On 12 December 2016 at 04:59, Craig Ringer 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
On 12 December 2016 at 12:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
>> It's definitely annoying, in both directions. ? wasn't a great choice
>> for an operator character but it's logical and was grandfathered over
>> from hstore.
>
> It was
Craig Ringer writes:
> It's definitely annoying, in both directions. ? wasn't a great choice
> for an operator character but it's logical and was grandfathered over
> from hstore.
It was grandfathered from a lot further back than that. A quick look
into the system
On 11 December 2016 at 18:52, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2016 17:54, "Andres Freund" wrote:
>
> On 2016-12-09 12:17:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> As Geoff says, you don't have to use the operators; you could use the
>> equivalent functions
On 9 Dec 2016 17:54, "Andres Freund" wrote:
On 2016-12-09 12:17:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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
On 2016-12-09 12:17:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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.
Well, except that only operators support
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> 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.
>
In most cases -
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Jordan Gigov wrote:
> There is this problem with the jsonb operators "? text" "?| text[]"
> and "?& text[]" that the question mark is typically used for prepared
> statement parameters in the most used abstraction APIs in Java and
> PHP.
>
>
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Jordan Gigov 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
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Jordan Gigov wrote:
> There is this problem with the jsonb operators "? text" "?| text[]"
> and "?& text[]" that the question mark is typically used for prepared
> statement parameters in the most used abstraction APIs in Java and
> PHP.
>
On 9 December 2016 at 11:50, Jordan Gigov wrote:
> There is this problem with the jsonb operators "? text" "?| text[]"
> and "?& text[]" that the question mark is typically used for prepared
> statement parameters in the most used abstraction APIs in Java and
> PHP.
>
> This
21 matches
Mail list logo