Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Backend misfeasance for DEFAULT NULL

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Backend misfeasance for DEFAULT NULL
Date: 2007-10-28 23:33:08
Message-ID: 47251C34.8040803@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> You have a point, but on reflection I think the odds of this change
> breaking an existing application are low.  The reason is that in the old
> implementation, "DEFAULT NULL" is effectively not there at all, and so
> an update to a newer point-release, or even a dump and reload, wouldn't
> change the behavior of an existing database.  Somebody creating *new*
> tables with DDL that includes such a specification would see the
> behavioral change, but if they are specifying it that way they'd
> probably want it to work.  Also, the lack of a complaint from the field
> suggests to me that nobody has really been trying to do this anyway ...
>
> Still, fixing only HEAD would be less work for me, so I'm happy with
> that if it's the consensus.
>
>
>   

I'm in two minds about it. I hate leaving bugs unfixed, however obscure.

I suspect domains are one of our least used features, which might 
account for the lack of complaint.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-28 23:56:29
Subject: Re: Backend misfeasance for DEFAULT NULL
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-28 22:52:00
Subject: Re: Backend misfeasance for DEFAULT NULL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group