|
Rethinking parameterized SQL queries
John Cowan
(27 Feb 2021 01:18 UTC)
|
|
Re: Rethinking parameterized SQL queries
Lassi Kortela
(27 Feb 2021 09:13 UTC)
|
|
Re: Rethinking parameterized SQL queries
Lassi Kortela
(27 Feb 2021 09:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: Rethinking parameterized SQL queries
Lassi Kortela
(27 Feb 2021 09:30 UTC)
|
|
Re: Rethinking parameterized SQL queries
John Cowan
(27 Feb 2021 20:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: Rethinking parameterized SQL queries
Lassi Kortela
(27 Feb 2021 20:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: Rethinking parameterized SQL queries
John Cowan
(27 Feb 2021 22:14 UTC)
|
|
Re: Rethinking parameterized SQL queries Peter Bex (28 Feb 2021 10:21 UTC)
|
|
Re: Rethinking parameterized SQL queries
John Cowan
(01 Mar 2021 03:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: Rethinking parameterized SQL queries
Florian Weimer
(27 Feb 2021 12:32 UTC)
|
|
Re: Rethinking parameterized SQL queries
Lassi Kortela
(27 Feb 2021 12:39 UTC)
|
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 05:14:05PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > That seems like a mere inversion of my OP, except that it assumes good > stuff on the inside, bad stuff on the outside > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 3:36 PM Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> wrote: > > > > Free for now. ~ is used for complement or negation in several languages. > > > > Not a problem. It would certainly not be a heavily used feature, and if > you do want to use it, you just write it as ~~, the same as you write %% in > printf strings. That's a little awkward, because in Postgres ~ is used for regular expression operators: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-matching.html#FUNCTIONS-POSIX-REGEXP It also says "The operator ~~ is equivalent to LIKE, and ~~* corresponds to ILIKE". So in this proposal, that operator would be written as ~~~~*. I would probably just go for the question mark, that seems to be the most commonly used character in other languages. Personally I'd be happier if the underlying representation could be used by the programmer. This means the driver doesn't need to do anything, it can just pass the string as-is to the underlying protocol. It is much less error-prone and safety is basically guaranteed since you're just relying on the protocol itself. But then that also means it's not cross-database portable... Cheers, Peter