On Thursday, October 16, 2025, Sergei Katkovsky <skatkovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand why any of these variants are better than the
> original wording "blank-padded". That has the non-negligible
> advantage of corresponding to the type name, and furthermore
> appears in many other places in our docs and source code.
The wording for BPCHAR (not to be confused with BPCHAR(N) is already
"blank-trimming", not "blank-padded". And "blank-padded" is probably
the least correct wording variant for BPCHAR, because this type has
unlimited length and it's impossible to pad to the infinity.