Daniel Migowski <dmigowski@ikoffice.de> writes:
> * At first, VARCHAR as defined by SQL and as used by all other JDBC
> drivers always has a upper limit. LONGVARCHAR is for very large
> quantities of text, so IMHO returning a "text" or an unrestricted
> "varchar" as VARCHAR just breaks the specs and the expectations.
Unfortunately, LONGVARCHAR is no more standard than TEXT, at least
as far as the non-JDBC world is concerned.
I concur with the complaints that LONGVARCHAR is likely to prompt
applications to do things that might be enormously inefficient overkill
for typical-size fields. If the driver had a way to know which fields
are likely to be wide, it'd be OK to translate them to LONGVARCHAR,
but I'm dubious about doing that for text fields in general.
regards, tom lane
