"Uwe C. Schroeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 30 March 2006 21:27, Tom Lane wrote:
>> My own take on this is that you should "say what you mean". If you do
>> not have a clear application-oriented reason for specifying a particular
>> limit N in varchar(N), you have no business choosing a random value of N
>> instead. Use text, instead of making up an N.
> Tom, good point. However, if you design an application that at one point
> _might_ need to be run on something else than postgres (say oracle or DB2),
> your're way better off with a varchar than text.
Well, if you are looking for the lowest-common-denominator textual
column datatype, then varchar(255) is probably it ... I think even Bill
Gates would feel ashamed to sell a database that could not handle that.
But my reading of the OP's question was about whether there's a usefully
large value of N for which every available DB will take "varchar(N)".
I'm not real sure what the practical limit of N is in that question,
other than being pretty confident that Postgres isn't holding down
last place. Comments anyone?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
