Re: ALTER TABLE...ALTER COLUMN vs inheritance

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:45, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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?

I don't care strongly enough to argue for them. I just thought if it
was something the spec said or someone wanted it would be easy to add
while in the area :) Sorry for the insane hand waving.

We already have pg_attrdef, all we really need is the inhcount and
islocal columns on that. No reason to bring pg_constraint into it all
at.

> What would it mean to have more than one default attached to a column?

"It would be like so far out dude"

Ok so my hippie impression needs work...