Re: BUG: text(varchar) truncates at 31 bytes

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Dave Blasby <dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG: text(varchar) truncates at 31 bytes
Date: 2001-10-04 04:46:45
Message-ID: 3BBBE9B5.7E74E96C@fourpalms.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

...
> Sure, I said *after* we fail to find an exact match. But the "freebie"
> match is for a function name that matches a type name and is
> binary-compatible with the source type. That's not a weak constraint.
> ISTM that interpretation should take priority over interpretations that
> involve more than one level of transformation.

Ah, OK I think. If there is a counterexample, it is probably no less
obscure than this one.

- Thomas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2001-10-04 04:51:11 timestamp resolution?
Previous Message balsu balsu 2001-10-04 04:40:22 how to increase the back end process