Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
> treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
> than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
> error is raised if one is found. Are we OK with that?
Why would it be a good idea to act differently from the others?
regards, tom lane