On 15 May 2015 at 16:21, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Dave Cramer <p...@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 Dave Cramer dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca http://www.credativ.ca
