| From: | Craig Johannsen <cjohan(at)home(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jeffrey A(dot) Rhines" <jrhines(at)email(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL::General List" <pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Solved] SQL Server to PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2000-08-23 05:06:26 |
| Message-ID: | 39A35BD2.816DE53E@home.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
I think the ODBC spec limits varchar to 255 bytes.
Some ODBC drivers enforce that limit.
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jeffrey A. Rhines" <jrhines(at)email(dot)com> writes:
> >> Uh ... what's wrong with varchar(n) ?
> >
> > I've wondered that myself, actually. What are the benefits and
> > drawbacks to going with one over the other, besides the obvious 255-char
> > field length limit for varchar?
>
> AFAIK there has *never* been a 255-char limit on char or varchar in
> pgsql ... you must be thinking of Some Other DBMS.
>
> [snip]
> regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | richard excite | 2000-08-23 07:02:55 | VARCHAR with null |
| Previous Message | sridhvenk | 2000-08-23 03:42:27 | Re: Count & Distinct |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-08-23 06:03:43 | Re: Optimisation deficiency: currval('seq')-->seq scan, constant-->index scan |
| Previous Message | Tim Perdue | 2000-08-23 04:56:18 | Re: Interesting new bug? |