On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Ken Tanzer <ken.tan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That doesn't matter much in a simple example like that, but the example > below is currently making me wish PG was just a little bit more specific. > Is there much chance of this changing in future releases? > > I'm not holding my breath...and have to come to feel that when I see that message in my own production environment I am being punished for defining an inferior database model. I should have used "text" and if I have length concerns for storage in tables I should add a check constraint (and probably be checking for non-visible characters and other stuff too). I largely am doing that in my new stuff but my legacy schema is not amenable to such a change - even though removing the type attribute doesn't cause a table re-write - in particular because of views. I seem to recall a discussion a few years back but cannot find it searching online. The one post I did find was from 6 years ago and I was the only respondent and basically said the same or less than I am here. David J.
