On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:45, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.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... -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
