On 12 December 2016 at 04:59, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> 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's a common punctuation mark in spanish so it's probably not hard to find on a lot of keyboards or hard to find instructions on how to type one. There is always a risk in allowing redundant syntaxes though. For example people running grep to find all uses of an operator will miss the alternate spelling. There may even be security implications for that though to be honest that seems unlikely in this case. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
