> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-general- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of jam3 > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:34 PM > To: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Where is the char and varchar length in pg_catalog > for function input variables > > This is what I meant to post > > .................. > > Just showing that it does indeed not use the length in at all, and this just > seems wrong. I can definetly see situations where someone would put a > length on a in put var and get an an unexpected result, like the one above. > You can argue it is wrong, and I'd tend to agree. But that is how things are until someone decides it is painful enough to implement a better way. It is a documented situation though suggestions for improvements there are always welcome. If/when you care you can implement adhoc validation inside the function. Discoverability via meta-data is the nice but lacking ability with the current model but for arbitrary length and precision/scale specifications that ability has limited (but non-zero) value. For better and worse you can "extend" the system tables and include the meta-data that you feel is necessary to make the system work. It is a much less invasive procedure than altering the catalogs themselves. David J. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
