| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Chuck McDevitt" <cmcdevitt(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Hammond" <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "Larry McGhaw" <lmcghaw(at)connx(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Selecting a constant question: A summary |
| Date: | 2007-06-13 09:36:28 |
| Message-ID: | 87myz4ci1v.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Chuck McDevitt" <cmcdevitt(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> Just a curiosity question: Why is the type of a literal '1' "unknown"
> instead of varchar(1)?
Even if it was assigned a text datatype it would be the unconstrainted "text"
not varchar(1). If we used varchar(1) then things like:
create table foo as select 'foo';
would create a table with varchar(3) which would then complain if you tried to
insert 'foobar' into. There doesn't seem to be enough evidence that the user
intended to constrain the input to just 'foo' in that case.
Of course right now you get a table with a column of type "unknown" which is
very unlikely to be what the user expects.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-06-13 09:54:01 | Re: comparing index columns |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2007-06-13 09:25:35 | EXPLAIN omits schema? |