Daniel Migowski wrote:
> Please give me any good reasons not to apply my patch, with would
> further improve standards conformance.
My main concern is that 'text' is a very common type to use in
PostgreSQL based designs, and that JDBC applications are more likely to
understand how to interpret a field that claims to be VARCHAR than one
that is LONGVARCHAR, given that LONGVARCHAR is a relatively strange type
and at best poorly defined.
i.e. - there are likely to be applications out there that depend on the
current behaviour - what are you going to do to support them?
This is the first time that mapping 'text' to LONGVARCHAR has been
suggested, as far as I can recall, so I think your "this breaks ORM
mappers and anything else that tries to understand the database schema"
claim is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. If it does, where are all the
bug reports?
-O
