Bug in concat operator for Char?

Folks,

Also:
This behavior was different in 7.1:

[11:02:45] <DarcyB> darcy=# select '1'::char(4) || '-'::char(1);
[11:02:45] <DarcyB> ?column?
[11:02:45] <DarcyB> ----------
[11:02:45] <DarcyB> 1 -
[11:02:45] <DarcyB> (1 row)
[11:02:49] <DarcyB> on 7.1

And there's apparently either an issue, or a change in behavior, in CHAR for
7.5:

[11:03:25] <DarcyB> darcy=# SELECT length('1'::char(4));
[11:03:25] <DarcyB> length
[11:03:25] <DarcyB> --------
[11:03:25] <DarcyB> 1
[11:03:25] <DarcyB> (1 row)
[11:03:29] <DarcyB> is 7.5

pg743=> select length('1'::char(4));
length
--------
4
(1 row)
(on 7.4.3)

Are these changes intentional, or are they bugs?

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:

Are these changes intentional,

Yes. We've been moving more and more steadily towards the notion that
trailing spaces in char(n) values are insignificant noise. If you think
that trailing spaces are significant, you shouldn't be using char(n)
to store them.

regards, tom lane

This means that there is no more difference between CHAR(N) and
VARCHAR(N). To bad... '1 ' sould be different from '1'.

Tom Lane wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:

Are these changes intentional,

Yes. We've been moving more and more steadily towards the notion that
trailing spaces in char(n) values are insignificant noise. If you think
that trailing spaces are significant, you shouldn't be using char(n)
to store them.

Well, the problem here is that technically we're returning the wrong type.
We should be returning a char(l1+l2) rather than a text for a char
concatenate, but similarly to the recent complaint about numerics, we
don't really have a fully proper way to do that and it seems non-trivial.

Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

Yes. We've been moving more and more steadily towards the notion that
trailing spaces in char(n) values are insignificant noise. If you think
that trailing spaces are significant, you shouldn't be using char(n)
to store them.

Well, the problem here is that technically we're returning the wrong type.
We should be returning a char(l1+l2) rather than a text for a char
concatenate, but similarly to the recent complaint about numerics, we
don't really have a fully proper way to do that and it seems non-trivial.

Well, it'd be trivial to implement a char || char yielding char
operator; it could just point to the existing textcat function and
you'd get what you want. (It would come out as char(-1), ie unspecified
length, but I'm not buying into doing the kind of analysis it would take
to predict the length.) The real question in my mind is whether that
would be more or less consistent with the behavior in other cases.
Food for thought: in 7.4,

regression=# select ('X '::char) = ('X'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

regression=# select ('Y '::char) = ('Y'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

regression=# select ('X '::char || 'Y '::char) = ('X'::char || 'Y'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

If we change || as is proposed in this thread, then the last case would
yield 'false', because the first concatenation would yield 'X Y '
which is not equal to 'XY' no matter what you think about trailing
spaces. I find it a bit disturbing that the concatenation of equal
values would yield unequal values.

IMHO the bottom line here is that the SQL-spec behavior of type char(N)
is completely brain-dead. Practically all of the questions in this area
would go away if people used varchar(N) or text to store their data.

regards, tom lane

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

Yes. We've been moving more and more steadily towards the notion that
trailing spaces in char(n) values are insignificant noise. If you think
that trailing spaces are significant, you shouldn't be using char(n)
to store them.

Well, the problem here is that technically we're returning the wrong type.
We should be returning a char(l1+l2) rather than a text for a char
concatenate, but similarly to the recent complaint about numerics, we
don't really have a fully proper way to do that and it seems non-trivial.

Well, it'd be trivial to implement a char || char yielding char
operator; it could just point to the existing textcat function and
you'd get what you want. (It would come out as char(-1), ie unspecified
length, but I'm not buying into doing the kind of analysis it would take
to predict the length.) The real question in my mind is whether that

The reason that to do it completely means knowing the length comes from
case and union afaics. Both of these need to do something consistent with
the lengths.

case when <blah> then 'f'::char(2) || 'g'::char(2) else
'f'::char(3) || 'g'::char(3) end
should return a consistent length char no matter which branch is taken on
any given row.

This was the basic complaint with numeric in the -sql thread, we return
the "correct" actual numeric values with proper seeming precision and
scale, but if you then case two of these that gave different precision and
scale, you'd get inconsistent scale in the case output.

Food for thought: in 7.4,

regression=# select ('X '::char) = ('X'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

regression=# select ('Y '::char) = ('Y'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

regression=# select ('X '::char || 'Y '::char) = ('X'::char || 'Y'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

If we change || as is proposed in this thread, then the last case would
yield 'false', because the first concatenation would yield 'X Y '
which is not equal to 'XY' no matter what you think about trailing
spaces. I find it a bit disturbing that the concatenation of equal
values would yield unequal values.

That is somewhat bad, yeah.

IMHO the bottom line here is that the SQL-spec behavior of type char(N)
is completely brain-dead. Practically all of the questions in this area
would go away if people used varchar(N) or text to store their data.

It is fairly wierd, yes. I'm not sure if the spec lets you, but a NO PAD
default character set probably would have made this simpler, by not
requiring that 'Y'::char(4) is equal to 'Y'::char(2), but it's really too
late to change that now in any case.

Tom Lane wrote:

Food for thought: in 7.4,

regression=# select ('X '::char) = ('X'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

regression=# select ('Y '::char) = ('Y'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

regression=# select ('X '::char || 'Y '::char) = ('X'::char || 'Y'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

If we change || as is proposed in this thread, then the last case would
yield 'false', because the first concatenation would yield 'X Y '
which is not equal to 'XY' no matter what you think about trailing
spaces. I find it a bit disturbing that the concatenation of equal
values would yield unequal values.

Well this indicates that the first two examples are questionable. 'X '
is quite-the-same as 'X', but not really-the-same.

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION toms_name() RETURNS char(50)
as $BODY$
DECLARE fullname char(50);
DECLARE firstname char(50) := 'Tom';
DECLARE secondname char(50) := 'G';
DECLARE lastname char(50) := 'Lane';
BEGIN
fullname := firstname;
IF secondname != '' THEN
IF fullname != '' THEN
fullname := fullname || ' ';
END IF;
fullname := fullname || secondname;
END IF;
IF fullname != '' THEN
fullname := fullname || ' ';
END IF;
fullname := fullname || lastname;

RETURN fullname;
END;
$BODY$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql'

I find the result of this function quite surprising, and certainly not
yielding what was intended (yes, this can avoided, I know). Surprise is
getting bigger, if fullname is declared as text...

IMHO the bottom line here is that the SQL-spec behavior of type char(N)
is completely brain-dead.

Just for COBOL's sake, I suppose.

Regards,
Andreas

On July 21, 2004 08:22 am, Tom Lane wrote:

IMHO the bottom line here is that the SQL-spec behavior of type char(N)
is completely brain-dead. Practically all of the questions in this area
would go away if people used varchar(N) or text to store their data.

regards, tom lane

For reference sake oracle treats it as follows:

<Dorm> SQL> create table dummy (value char(4));
<Dorm> Table created.
<Dorm> SQL> insert into dummy values ('A');
<Dorm> 1 row created.
<Dorm> SQL> commit;
<Dorm> Commit complete.
<Dorm> SQL> select value||value from dummy;
<Dorm> VALUE||V
<Dorm> --------
<Dorm> A A
<Dorm> SQL> select length(value||value) from dummy;
<Dorm> LENGTH(VALUE||VALUE)
<Dorm> --------------------
<Dorm> 8

--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com

Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> writes:

Tom Lane wrote:

Food for thought: in 7.4,

regression=# select ('X '::char) = ('X'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

regression=# select ('Y '::char) = ('Y'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

regression=# select ('X '::char || 'Y '::char) = ('X'::char || 'Y'::char);
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

If we change || as is proposed in this thread, then the last case would
yield 'false', because the first concatenation would yield 'X Y '
which is not equal to 'XY' no matter what you think about trailing
spaces. I find it a bit disturbing that the concatenation of equal
values would yield unequal values.

Well this indicates that the first two examples are questionable.

Indeed, but AFAICS this behavior is mandated by the SQL standard.
(Note we are interpreting char(N) as always having the PAD SPACE
behavior, though the spec really wants us to associate that with
a collation instead.)

regards, tom lane