From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Migowski <dmigowski(at)ikoffice(dot)de> |
Cc: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TypeInfoCache |
Date: | 2007-12-20 04:41:05 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.64.0712192320120.16373@leary.csoft.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
>
>> But a "varchar" (with no limit) and "text" *are* interchangeable, which
>> is why we identify text as VARCHAR
>
> But note that varchar-with-no-limit is itself a Postgres-ism: it's
> not allowed by the standard.
>
So should varchar(10000000) be returned as VARCHAR or LONGVARCHAR?
Right now we return 0 for the precision of text or varchar without length.
Perhaps we should return something else for that similar to how we changed
the result of ResultSetMetaData.getColumnDisplaySize to return
Integer.MAX_VALUE instead of -1 for types without lengths.
Kris Jurka
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-12-20 10:04:59 | Re: TypeInfoCache |
Previous Message | Jan de Visser | 2007-12-20 01:39:29 | TypeInfoCache |