"Ken Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: > >> SQL92 section 6.1 <data type> quoth >> >> <character string type> ::= >> CHARACTER [ <left paren> <length> <right paren> ] >> | CHAR [ <left paren> <length> <right paren> ] >> >> ... >> >> 4) If <length> is omitted, then a <length> of 1 is implicit. >> >> Therefore, writing just "char" is defined as equivalent to "char(1)". > > However when length is not defined I think it will generally be safe(r) to > auto-size. In the grand scheme auto-size creates much more sensible output > than > a 1-char wide one (even if right-padded to max char-length of the type).
Sure, but you're a prime candidate for understanding the value of following the spec if you're trying to write software that works with multiple databases. It's a bit crazy to be using CHAR and then complaining about padding... That's what CHAR is for. If the other database doesn't support varchar it's so far from the SQL spec that writing something portable between it and something else is probably hopeless. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
