"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: > Only, I guess, because of the name. If it weren't called "char" I > guess I wouldn't be concerned about people expecting it to behave > something like char. If "char" behaved more like char, the 'xxx' > literal wouldn't be taken as input to the type in the above CASE > statement.
I'm not certain what you're trying to say, but the above is complete nonsense ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs