Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> go with the suggestion of having a character string literal type,
>> and change the semantics such that if there is a valid
>> interpretation of the statement with the character string literal
>> taken as text, it should be used; if not, resolve by current
>> "unknown" rules.
>
> There is already a weak preference for resolving unknown as text in
> the presence of multiple alternatives. So I'm not sure that you're
> suggesting anything different from what happens now.
It is certainly different for the example I gave up-thread involving
"char". Perhaps that is a very unique and isolated situation.
-Kevin