| From: | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgresql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DEFAULT of domain ignored in plpgsql (8.4.1) |
| Date: | 2009-11-21 09:20:47 |
| Message-ID: | BA18C835-7E5C-4EE5-B4FA-0C5D25F90448@pointblue.com.pl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21 Nov 2009, at 02:56, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Would a patch that changes that have any chance of being accepted? Or is
>> the gain (not having to repeat the DEFAULT clause, and being able to
>> maintain it at one place instead of many) considered too small compared
>> to the risk of breaking existing code?
>
> I don't think there's a lot of risk of code breakage; few people use
> domains, fewer use them with defaults, and you might be the only one
> using them as variable types. And there are going to be more
> substantial backwards compat issues with the lexer changes anyway. As
> long as we remember to flag the compatibility issue in the release
> notes, I don't see it as a problem.
we use domains with defaults, a lot. That's one of the purposes of domains, to have certain type, constraint, and default.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-11-21 10:08:02 | Proposal: USING clause for DO statement |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-11-21 07:29:05 | Re: enable-thread-safety defaults? |