From: | Rui DeSousa <rui(at)crazybean(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | raf <raf(at)raf(dot)org>, "pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL CHARACTER VARYING vs CHARACTER VARYING (Length) |
Date: | 2020-04-29 05:51:05 |
Message-ID: | 26C2714C-83BE-41A6-A694-2A40EC29C1B2@crazybean.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
> On Apr 29, 2020, at 1:32 AM, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> And “n” is so informative...please. The name of the field tells me most of what I care about, the “n” and/or constraint are fluff.
>
That was your recommendation; so I’m confused as to why it’s no longer valid.
>
> Also, when porting the schema to a different database engine and the create table statement fails because it’s too wide and doesn’t fit on a page; the end result is having to go back and redefine the text fields as varchar(n)/char(n) anyway.
>
> Not something I’m concerned about and if that other db doesn’t have something like TOAST it seems like an undesirable target.
>
Fine, I assume you will be employed by your employer in perpetuity and the system will remain on PostgreSQL.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rui DeSousa | 2020-04-29 05:52:07 | Re: PostgreSQL CHARACTER VARYING vs CHARACTER VARYING (Length) |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-04-29 05:32:43 | Re: PostgreSQL CHARACTER VARYING vs CHARACTER VARYING (Length) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rui DeSousa | 2020-04-29 05:52:07 | Re: PostgreSQL CHARACTER VARYING vs CHARACTER VARYING (Length) |
Previous Message | Mahendra Singh Thalor | 2020-04-29 05:45:36 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |