Re: PostgreSQL CHARACTER VARYING vs CHARACTER VARYING (Length)

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rui DeSousa <rui(at)crazybean(dot)net>
Cc: raf <raf(at)raf(dot)org>, Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL CHARACTER VARYING vs CHARACTER VARYING (Length)
Date: 2020-04-29 00:34:00
Message-ID: CAKFQuwZ2t2m2=M_sJrMfGKjy4LeoYuL0rGBojRXvxB9qh8P3gg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:21 PM Rui DeSousa <rui(at)crazybean(dot)net> wrote:

> I just use "text" for everything. It's less typing. :-)
>
> Ugh, I see it as sign that the designers of the schema didn’t fully think
> about the actual requirements or care about them and it usually shows.
>

There are very few situations where a non-arbitrary free-form text field is
going to have a non-arbitrary length constraint - that is also immutable.
Generally, spending time to figure out those rare exceptions is wasted
effort better spent elsewhere. They are also mostly insufficient when used
for their typical "protection" purpose. If you really want protection add
well thought out constraints.

Its less problematic now that increasing the generally arbitrary length
doesn't require a table rewrite but you still need to rebuild dependent
objects.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rui DeSousa 2020-04-29 00:40:57 Re: PostgreSQL CHARACTER VARYING vs CHARACTER VARYING (Length)
Previous Message Rui DeSousa 2020-04-29 00:20:53 Re: PostgreSQL CHARACTER VARYING vs CHARACTER VARYING (Length)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andy Fan 2020-04-29 00:34:59 Re: [PATCH] Keeps tracking the uniqueness with UniqueKey
Previous Message David Rowley 2020-04-29 00:29:20 Re: [PATCH] Keeps tracking the uniqueness with UniqueKey