Re: [SQL] Reasonable

Herouth Maoz <herouth@oumail.openu.ac.il> writes:
> Another potential problem is your use of a six-letter long default for a
> varying(1) field ("status").

6.5.* has some problems with wrong-length default values for char(n) and
varchar(n) fields.  There is a slightly klugy fix in place for char(n),
but a cursory test suggests that it doesn't catch the varchar case.
The consequences aren't as bad as they were for char(n): you just get
a field value that's longer than it's supposed to be.  Workaround:
give a correct default value.

This is all fixed properly in current sources (6.6/7.0-to-be).
        regards, tom lane