>>It'd be nice if it allows you to change the type from varchar(40)
>>to varchar(20) if you don't have any data that is larger than varchar(20).
>
> Yeah, and then an application comes in and wants to write more than
> 20 chars ...
why should i define a column as varchar(20) and should than want to
write more data than that?
i'd only define it as varchar(20) if i'm sure that 20 chars are enough.
> well, i dont like such size limitations at all - i'm using "text" instead.
> what about efficiency ? does it bring _anything_ to limit the size
> of varchar fields ?
well - than use text instead of varchar.