"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rob Richardson wrote:
>> Are there other reasons to use
>> varchar(64) instead of varchar?
> You can't have "varchar" without a length in parentheses,
> as far as I know.
That's what the spec says and that's what some other implementations
require, bu
Rob Richardson wrote:
> The database we install at our customers as part of our
> product includes an event_history table. For some reason
> lost in the mists of time, the most important field in that
> table, the description, is a varchar field specified to be
> only 64 characters long. This
esign.
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 8:07:31 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [GENERAL] Varchar vs varchar(64)
Greetings!
The database we install at our customers as part of
Greetings!
The database we install at our customers as part of our product includes
an event_history table. For some reason lost in the mists of time, the
most important field in that table, the description, is a varchar field
specified to be only 64 characters long. This leads me to a more
fun
