On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Actually, the lexer translates N'foo' to NCHAR 'foo' and then the >>> grammar treats that just like CHAR 'foo'. In short, the N doesn't do >>> anything very useful, and it certainly doesn't have any effect on >>> encoding behavior. I think this is something Tom Lockhart put in ten or >>> so years back, and never got as far as making it actually do anything >>> helpful. > >> so, the N'' syntax is fine and i don't need to hunt them as a migration step? > > As long as the implied cast to char(n) doesn't cause you problems, it's > fine. >
Is this something we want to document? Maybe something like: """ For historical reasons N'' syntax is also accepted as a string literal. """ or we can even mention the fact that that is useful for sql server migrations? -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
