Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: >> And I'm not even sure how I'd explain the rules to someone. > > text is preferred to "char" which is preferred to unknown. > > This particular example would be less confusing if 'Hey'::"char" > threw an error, but that behavior is the result of an ancient > (bad?) decision in the input function of one legacy datatype. > It's not, IMNSHO, evidence of an overall failure of the type system > as a whole. So the behavior of the "char" type is anomalous in this regard? Other character-based types behave like varchar (which has the behavior I would expect here)? That is encouraging. Why isn't the behavior of "char" in this regard considered a bug to be fixed? I'm not sure I'm exactly understanding why the varchar(2) worked, though. Perhaps it would be more clear if I grasped why *that* one does what I would think is the right thing. At this point my first guess would be that it discards the length for a varchar, and just treats it as text (or some other "neutral" character-based type). If so, perhaps "char" should do the same? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs