Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...)

On 15 May 2015 at 16:21, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
> Not sure what the point of this is: as you indicated the ship has sailed so
> to speak

Well, if we were to agree this was a problem, we could introduce new,
less-problematic operator names and then eventually deprecate the old
ones.  Personally, it wouldn't take a lot to convince me that if a
certain set of operator names is problematic for important connectors,
we should avoid using those and switch to other ones.  I expect others
on this mailing list to insist that if the connectors don't work,
that's the connector drivers fault for coding their connectors wrong.
And maybe that's the right answer, but on the other hand, maybe it's a
little myopic.  I think the discussion is worth having.

In that case my vote is new operators. This has been a sore point for the JDBC driver