Re: 7.2 changes to varchar truncation

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 10:54:48AM -0800, Ian Harding wrote:
> This brings up an interesting question, is there a reason to specify n? In other words, what is the downside of VARCHAR compared to VARCHAR(n)?

Depends on whether you want to enforce the length. I belive that the
new behaviour is more SQL-compliant, but someone with access to the
spec might be abe to correct me.

I will have the same problem soon, so I may change all of mine to plain old VARCHAR now if it makes sense...

> >>> "Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org> 12/31/01 02:04PM >>>

> If I have to change my datatypes to text or varchar without a limit, I'll
> have to drop and reload my databases (again), about which I plan to have a
> real bad attitude.

AFAIK, 7.2 will require this anyway. I believe it's part of the
definition of "major release" that it may require a dump and reload.

--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110