Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85AF475AFF for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:48:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD64475925 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:48:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0AEm10U000844; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:48:01 -0500 (EST) To: Robert Treat Cc: Radu-Adrian Popescu , Achilleus Mantzios , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SQL function parse error ? In-reply-to: <1042208818.2008.83.camel@camel> References: <777.1042127 826@sss.pgh.pa.us> <006301c2b7fc$41e58e40$0600a8c0@rpopescu> <1042145043.2007.31.camel@camel> <000b01c2b888$79e18100$0600a8c0@rpopescu> <1042208818.2008.83.camel@camel> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Treat message dated "10 Jan 2003 09:26:58 -0500" Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:48:01 -0500 Message-ID: <843.1042210081@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/152 X-Sequence-Number: 11017 Robert Treat writes: > ... I still > would like to see answered is whether oracle or others support >$ as an > operator, or if the sql spec has anything to say on the matter. The SQL spec does not have the concept of user-definable operators at all, so it provides no useful guidance about the set of characters that ought to be allowed in operator names (except, obviously, that we must include every character actually used in a SQL-standard operator). Oracle reportedly treats $ as an identifier character, so I don't think they could consider it an operator character. regards, tom lane