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. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
