On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 10:20:42AM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Tue 22 Jan 2002 00:16, "Jeff Urlwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tim, > > > > I'm against it. Reasoning: char (and nchar) columns are, at least in my > > experience, PADDED by the DB. Varchar columns, typically, are not. Thus: > > insert into char colum 'A' yeilds 'A ' when selected (of course, > > depending upon the size of the column) whereas > > insert into varchar column 'A' yields 'A' when selected. > > > > It seems to me that trimming char columns is important so that you get out > > what you put in (most of the time). It seems that trimming varchar columns > > means you don't get out what you put in. I do believe we should attempt to > > get out what you put in, not make decisions for the programmer(s).
I agree. That's why whatever is added would always be optional and default off. > But this is *exacvtly* why I asked in the first place: > > insert into varchar column '' yields NULL when selected (in Oracle) > > Which is **NOT** what I put in! But that is a specific Oracle issue that's only related to ChopBlanks by virtue of how we may choose to work around it. > > It's simple enough to pick the columns you want trimmed and s/s+$//; In my > > experience, I almost always trim CHAR columns and almost never trim varchar > > columns, based upon what I put into them and what I expect out... > > > > Of course, that's my opinion and subject to those with broader experience. I'm leaning towards an DBD::Oracle private solution at the moment. Tim.
