On 2018-11-09 22:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Nov-09, Jürgen Strobel wrote: > >> I am slightly confused now, I thought this landmine was already fixed in >> master and what remains is only whether to backport it or not? Which I >> guess depends on whether this is classified as a bug or not. > > Hmm, I changed (and back-patched) what happens to the NOT NULL clauses, > but as I understand the behavior of the DEFAULT clauses has not changed. > >> Since the fix has the potential to break current applications and the >> documentation is vague about wanted behavior I think it would be >> sensible to add a warning only, even if we agree to call it a bug. > > Hmm, the part I was first proposing to backpatch as an ERROR was a > mismatch in the COLLATE clause; then I talked about using a WARNING. I > ended up backpatching neither -- only immortalized the current behavior > in a test case. I think it should be an ERROR, but in master only. > > > The DEFAULT clauses are a different problem (landmine) :-) >
OK got it. I agree about differing COLLATE clauses making no sense and with the ERROR+WARNING solution, but I didn't report that. The NULL violation is obvious too. I still hope for a bug fix for the DEFAULT clause with sensible restrictions. -Jürgen
