On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:27:35PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Sam Mason <s...@samason.me.uk> wrote: > > you were requiring the types of literals that happened to be > > enclosed in quotes to have their type ascribed, so why not the NULL > > literal? > > Well, unless things have changed in recent versions of the standard > and I've missed the change, a series of characters enclosed in > apostrophes is what the standard calls a "character string literal" > and defines it to be be related to character based types such as > varchar. As far as I'm aware, considering it to be undefined is a > PostgreSQL extension. If you can point to something in the standard > to show where I'm mistaken, I'll look it over. I'll go looking for > something to back my memories on the topic, too, since my memory seems > to be less reliable than it once was.....
Sorry, I was referring to your explicit naming of types as in the following: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4a9e3378020000250002a...@gw.wicourts.gov reading it back again I'm not sure if that's what you meant now. Email is hard work isn't it! -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
