Re: 7.4's INFORMATION_SCHEMA.Columns View
| От | mike.griffin@mygenerationsoftware.com |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: 7.4's INFORMATION_SCHEMA.Columns View |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4513.4.160.153.201.1087607389.squirrel@4.160.153.201 обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: 7.4's INFORMATION_SCHEMA.Columns View (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: 7.4's INFORMATION_SCHEMA.Columns View
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
Well, does it have an actual length, that seems strange to me, is in infinitely large? I guess I'm just not used to being allowed not to define something, I'm a Microsoft type (he he) don't get me wrong, we've taken our product into all kinds of open source areas, what an eye opener it's been. I really like PostgreSQL, it's so much more powerful than MySQL yet you don't hear much about it? Anyway, I'm working on our foreign key queries tonight, we're pulling back lots of good meta data. I noticed that there is no INFORMATION_SCHEMA.Indexes ? isn't there supposed to be one. Thank goodness PostgreSQL has good documentation for the system catalogs. > mike.griffin@mygenerationsoftware.com writes: >> This is part of the Columns View, if you add a numeric field to your >> table >> and don't provide any Length or Precision then : > >> numeric_precision is returned as 65535 >> numeric_scale is returned as 65531 > > Yeah, that's what you'd get for a numeric field with no length > constraint. (I suspect varchar with no length constraint will > display funny as well.) > > The SQL spec doesn't allow unconstrained lengths for these types > so it gives no guidance about what to display in the information_schema > views. Any opinions? > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: