Re: [HACKERS] Varchar standard compliance

[Tom Lane]

Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently, CHAR is correctly interpreted as CHAR(1), but VARCHAR is
> incorrectly interpreted as VARCHAR(<infinity>).  Any reason for that,
> besides the fact that it of course makes much more sense than VARCHAR(1)?

On what grounds do you claim that behavior is incorrect?

                        regards, tom lane