Re: ALTER TABLE...ALTER COLUMN vs inheritance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE...ALTER COLUMN vs inheritance
Date: 2009-11-16 18:45:38
Message-ID: 23751.1258397138@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> FYI defaults have the same problem. Would it be awkward would it be
> to use pg_constraint for the book keeping as well? [ and by that I
> really mean ALTER TABLE ADD CONSTRAINT my_default DEFAULT .... so you
> can give them a name ]

That sounds moderately insane to me. Why would you need a name?
What would it mean to have more than one default attached to a column?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sergey Konoplev 2009-11-16 18:53:27 Re: Unpredictable shark slowdown after migrating to 8.4
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-11-16 18:31:24 Re: ORDER BY vs. volatile functions