Re: Dollar in identifiers
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck@yahoo.com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: "PostgreSQL HACKERS" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-01-10T01:36:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Change it - but just put it in the release notes :) Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane > Sent: Friday, 10 January 2003 1:10 AM > To: Jan Wieck; Peter Eisentraut > Cc: PostgreSQL HACKERS > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Dollar in identifiers > > > Quite awhile back, we had a discussion about removing "$" from the set > of allowed characters in operator names, and instead allowing it as a > non-first character in identifiers. (It'd have to be non-first to avoid > ambiguity with parameter symbols "$nnn".) See, eg, > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-08/msg00629.php > > That discussion petered out without any definite consensus being > reached, but I think it's time to reconsider the idea. We're getting > flak about "x<$n" being parsed as "x <$ n" rather than "x < $n" (see > current thread in pgsql-sql). While this has always been a hazard for > SQL and plpgsql function writers, it is now also a hazard in direct > SQL, if you use PREPAREd queries. So I think the importance of avoiding > such problems has moved up a notch as of 7.3. > > So, I'd like to put that proposal back on the table. Comments anyone? > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >