Re: TypeInfoCache

Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Daniel Migowski wrote:
>
>> Please give me any good reasons not to apply my patch, with would
>> further improve standards conformance.
>
> My main concern is that 'text' is a very common type to use in
> PostgreSQL based designs, and that JDBC applications are more likely to
> understand how to interpret a field that claims to be VARCHAR than one
> that is LONGVARCHAR, given that LONGVARCHAR is a relatively strange type
> and at best poorly defined.

Also worth noting that 'text' is commonly used even for very short
strings. Do you really want to hint to JDBC clients that they should be
using the streaming interface and expect to deal with very long strings
in that common case? I suspect (with no hard data to back it up,
admittedly!) that 'text' fields in general use are more commonly under
100 characters than over a megabyte.

-O