"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)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