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...