Re: Question about format_type function

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: tony_caduto(at)amsoftwaredesign(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Question about format_type function
Date: 2005-04-04 01:49:49
Message-ID: 16702.1112579389@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tony Caduto <tony_caduto(at)amsoftwaredesign(dot)com> writes:
> The format_type function is great, except for the way it formats varchars,
> it always returns Character Varying or whatever,
> ...
> I don't know of any other system that shows varchars in this way, they
> should just be formated as varchar(50).

Hmm ... AFAICS, "character varying(n)" and "varchar(n)" are equally
valid spellings according to the SQL spec.

I'd personally prefer the shorter spelling too, but I can't see any
particularly strong argument for changing it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2005-04-04 03:41:15 Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-04-04 01:04:27 Re: Strange plpgsql performance -- arithmetic, numeric() type, arrays