| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruno Harbulot <bruno(at)distributedmatter(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) |
| Date: | 2015-05-19 18:22:43 |
| Message-ID: | 14852.1432059763@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com> writes:
> See for example
> http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/text.102/b14218/cqoper.htm#i997330,
> Table 3-1, third row, showing the precedence of '?'. Further down the
> page, under "Fuzzy" see "Backward Compatibility Syntax".
If I'm reading that right, that isn't a SQL-level operator but an operator
in their text search query language, which would only appear in SQL
queries within string literals (compare tsquery's query operators in PG).
So it wouldn't be a hazard for ?-substitution, as long as the substituter
was bright enough to not change string literals.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2015-05-19 18:28:07 | Re: a few thoughts on the schedule |
| Previous Message | Mike Blackwell | 2015-05-19 18:14:44 | Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) |