Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Schemes like this have been discussed before but I don't think we
> considered applying the limitation that only the "first" default value
> would be covered. We always wanted to be able to handle new defaults
> or making a non-null column nullable later.
Yeah ... I don't see exactly what it would buy to restrict it to just
the first such value.
regards, tom lane