Re: BUG #17258: Unexpected results in CHAR(1) data type

Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> I haven't studied the behavior of char(n) on other RDBMS products.  I'd be curious if the SQL spec says anything that
we'reviolating in this regard. 

It's not a great approximation to the spec.  Postgres views trailing
spaces in a char(n) value as always being semantically insignificant,
where I think the spec treats them as insignificant only for purposes of
comparisons.  Even more to the point, the spec considers that PAD SPACE
is an attribute of *collations* not data types.  Back in the day we
didn't have collations, so the only way to even approximate that
behavior was to make it a data type property.  Now that we do have
collations, it'd be conceivable to reimplement all this in something
closer to the way the spec describes it.  But it'd be a lot of work,
and I'm not sure we'd accept such a patch even if somebody wrote it.
It'd almost inevitably break applications that are relying on the
existing behavior.

> I tend to think of char(n) as a misfeature and avoid using it.

Yeah, that.  I haven't seen any reason to use char(n) rather than
varchar(n) since punched cards stopped being a thing.  So it's hard
to summon the motivation to do a lot of work on that data type.

Perhaps somebody else will feel more motivated, but nobody's stepped
forward, and I wouldn't counsel holding your breath for it.

            regards, tom lane