Re: BPCHAR description in 8.3. Character Types is misleading and incomplete

On Wed, 2025-10-15 at 15:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > Please take a look at the attached patch. If you'd like your name
> > included in the commit, please send it as you'd like it to appear.
>
> I don't understand why any of these variants are better than the
> original wording "blank-padded".  That has the non-negligible
> advantage of corresponding to the type name, and furthermore
> appears in many other places in our docs and source code.

I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, but I'll explain the
reasoning:

"Padded" is confusing in the sense that it raises the question: "padded
to what length?". Since bpchar doesn't have a specific length
associated with it, then it's just taking the spaces that went into the
type input function, which doesn't sound like "padding" in the same
sense as CHAR(10).

Regards,
Jeff Davis