Re: ALTER TABLE...ALTER COLUMN vs inheritance

Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com>

From: Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2009-11-16T21:05:11Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Catalog NOT NULL constraints
- e056c557aef4 16.0 landed

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:45, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex@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...