| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inconsistent error message for varchar(n) |
| Date: | 2021-11-14 19:00:27 |
| Message-ID: | 2017111.1636916427@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
[ Please trim quotes appropriately when replying. Nobody wants to
read the whole history of the thread to get to your comment. ]
Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> Oh! I didn't consider this situation. Since the max size of varchar cannot
> exceed 10485760, however, I cannot find this in documentation [1]. Is there
> something I missed? Should we mention this in the documentation?
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/datatype-character.html
I dunno, that section doesn't really get into implementation limits.
For comparison, it doesn't bring up the point that string values are
constrained to 1GB; that's dealt with elsewhere. Since the limit on
typmod is substantially more than that, I'm not sure there's much point
in mentioning it specifically. Maybe there's a case for mentioning the
1GB limit here, though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-14 19:11:30 | Re: Inconsistent error message for varchar(n) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-14 18:30:35 | Re: JIT doing duplicative optimization? |