> >>You don't consider a requirement that a field be no longer than a 
> >>certain length a reason not to use TEXT?  
> Can't you just create a TEXT(255) field same as you can just create 
> VARCHAR  (with no length) field?  I think they're basically synonyms for 
> each other these days.

I'll defer to the SQL standard gurus on this, as well as to the internals
guys, but I suspect there is a difference between the standard itself 
and implementor details, such as how char, varchar, varchar2 and text 
are implemented.  As long as things work as specified, I don't think 
the standard cares much about what's happening behind the curtain.
Mike Nolan

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to