Re: Selecting a constant question
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Larry McGhaw" <lmcghaw@connx.com>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog@svana.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2007-06-12T00:32:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Larry McGhaw" <lmcghaw@connx.com> writes: > I think perhaps we have lost sight of the main issue: > 1) libpq can properly describe the maximum internal data size of any > numeric or char column in a table via Pqfsize > 2) libpq can properly describe the maximum internal data size of any > varchar column via Pqfmod > 3) libpq can properly describe the maximum internal data size of any > numeric constant in a SQL statement via Pqfsize None of the above statements are actually true, at least not when you take off your blinders and note the existence of unconstrained-width numeric and text columns. > The database *knows* this size of the char constant (obviously), No, what it knows (and reports) is type information. There are a small number of datatypes where you can infer a maximum width from knowledge of the datatype. There are many others where you can't set an upper bound from this knowledge --- at least not a usefully tight one. Anyway, if we were to cast those constants to something other than unknown, it would be text, not varchar, and you'd still have the same issue. regards, tom lane