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 make SQL wrapper
function
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".
To look at this from t
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 adding
>> alternativ
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 sure that using a non-ASCII character
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 punctuation mark in spa
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 makes
>>> offering alternatives much less appealing.
>>
>> One optio
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 to define duplicate operator names
> usi
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
escape syntax for their p
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 assumption by client si
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 good choice because it'
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 grandfathered from a lot further back than that. A qui
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 catalogs says that core Postgre
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 instead. Every operator just gets turned into a
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 always possible.
Wel
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 indexing
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 - the decision to tie inde
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.
>
> This really needs an alt
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 use it to indicate a
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.
>
Unfortunately true. Th
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 really needs an altern
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 really needs an alternative. Something like "HAS text", "HAS
ANY(text[])" and "HAS
22 matches
Mail list logo
