Re: [JDBC] TypeInfoCache

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu Dec 20 2007 - 10:38:36 EST

Daniel Migowski <dmigowski@ikoffice.de> writes:

>     * At first, VARCHAR as defined by SQL and as used by all other JDBC

>       drivers always has a upper limit. LONGVARCHAR is for very large
>       quantities of text, so IMHO returning a "text" or an unrestricted
>       "varchar" as VARCHAR just breaks the specs and the expectations.


Unfortunately, LONGVARCHAR is no more standard than TEXT, at least
as far as the non-JDBC world is concerned.

I concur with the complaints that LONGVARCHAR is likely to prompt applications to do things that might be enormously inefficient overkill for typical-size fields. If the driver had a way to know which fields are likely to be wide, it'd be OK to translate them to LONGVARCHAR, but I'm dubious about doing that for text fields in general.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------

TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org Received on Thu Dec 20 10:47:16 2007