Tom Lane wrote:
Ian Barwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 12 January 2003 17:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I can't say don't use CHAR(n) because there are valid reasons to use
it.
I think what Tom is saying is always use VARCHAR(n) unless you know
for sure CHAR(n) is what you want,
On Sunday 12 January 2003 06:17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Q: Why do I get strange results with a CHAR(n) field?
A. Don't use CHAR(n). VARCHAR(n) has the behavior you are probably
expecting; on top of which it's more compact and usually faster.
I suppose the above needs
Ian Barwick wrote:
On Sunday 12 January 2003 06:17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Q: Why do I get strange results with a CHAR(n) field?
A. Don't use CHAR(n). VARCHAR(n) has the behavior you are probably
expecting; on top of which it's more compact and usually faster.
Bruce Momjian writes:
OK, new text is:
I think Tom specifically wanted the notion don't use CHAR(n), it has
unusual behavior to appear prominently in the FAQ. The current text
simply rehashes the documentation.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
OK, new text is:
I think Tom specifically wanted the notion don't use CHAR(n), it has
unusual behavior to appear prominently in the FAQ. The current text
simply rehashes the documentation.
I can't say don't use CHAR(n) because there are
On Sunday 12 January 2003 17:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
OK, new text is:
I think Tom specifically wanted the notion don't use CHAR(n), it has
unusual behavior to appear prominently in the FAQ. The current text
simply rehashes the
Ian Barwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 12 January 2003 17:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I can't say don't use CHAR(n) because there are valid reasons to use
it.
I think what Tom is saying is always use VARCHAR(n) unless you know
for sure CHAR(n) is what you want, because if you slept
