Varchar standard compliance

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Varchar standard compliance
Дата
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0011161912220.783-100000@peter.localdomain
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: Varchar standard compliance
Список pgsql-hackers
Currently, CHAR is correctly interpreted as CHAR(1), but VARCHAR is
incorrectly interpreted as VARCHAR(<infinity>).  Any reason for that,
besides the fact that it of course makes much more sense than VARCHAR(1)?

Additionally, neither CHAR nor VARCHAR seem to bark on too long input,
they just truncate silently.

I'm wondering because should the bit types be made to imitate this
incorrect behaviour, or should they start out correctly?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Don Baccus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/access/transam ( xact.c xlog.c)
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: AW: AW: AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language nam esh