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
>
