Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> This looks like another situation where we're running into
>> trouble because of non-standard behavior when people might be
>> expecting something consistent with other products and the
>> explicit language in the standard.
>
> If we were to change that so that 'ab ' were implicitly typed as
> char(4), then we'd start getting bug reports from people
> complaining that "select 'ab' = 'ab '" yields true. I remain of
> the opinion that char(n) is so hopelessly brain-damaged that we
> should be very careful to NOT bring it into our mainstream
> behavior.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but it does present a barrier to
those migrating. Are there any "migration considerations" documents
where we should mention this? Standards compliance notes in the
docs? Some form of this question seems to be asked frequently....
-Kevin