On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 01:27:35PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> wrote:
> > you were requiring the types of literals that happened to be
> > enclosed in quotes to have their type ascribed, so why not the NULL
> > literal?
>
> Well, unless things have changed in recent versions of the standard
> and I've missed the change, a series of characters enclosed in
> apostrophes is what the standard calls a "character string literal"
> and defines it to be be related to character based types such as
> varchar. As far as I'm aware, considering it to be undefined is a
> PostgreSQL extension. If you can point to something in the standard
> to show where I'm mistaken, I'll look it over. I'll go looking for
> something to back my memories on the topic, too, since my memory seems
> to be less reliable than it once was.....
Sorry, I was referring to your explicit naming of types as in the
following:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4A9E3378020000250002A87E@gw.wicourts.gov
reading it back again I'm not sure if that's what you meant now. Email
is hard work isn't it!
--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/
