| From: | Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Uwe C(dot) Schroeder" <uwe(at)oss4u(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Chris <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com>, kurt _ <kjs216(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PSQL Data Type: text vs. varchar(n) |
| Date: | 2006-04-03 17:04:09 |
| Message-ID: | 129CC42D-26B3-4426-8A0A-B1117465F1A8@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mar 31, 2006, at 12:51 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, if you are looking for the lowest-common-denominator textual
> column datatype, then varchar(255) is probably it ... I think even
> Bill
> Gates would feel ashamed to sell a database that could not handle
> that.
> But my reading of the OP's question was about whether there's a
> usefully
> large value of N for which every available DB will take "varchar(N)".
> I'm not real sure what the practical limit of N is in that question,
> other than being pretty confident that Postgres isn't holding down
> last place. Comments anyone?
Not sure if it's still true, but DB2 used to limit varchar to 255. I
don't think anyone limits it lower than that.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-04-03 17:06:03 | Re: FAQ 1.1 |
| Previous Message | Thomas F. O'Connell | 2006-04-03 16:59:10 | Re: pgpool ABORT + no transaction warning |