Tom Lane wrote:
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Plus, the fact that we don't support "default" specifications in
pl/pgsql for row types turns this inconvenience into a major PITA,
You mean initialization expressions, not defaults, correct? (I would
consider the latter to mean t
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Plus, the fact that we don't support "default" specifications in
> pl/pgsql for row types turns this inconvenience into a major PITA,
You mean initialization expressions, not defaults, correct? (I would
consider the latter to mean that whatever att
Tom Lane wrote:
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I just stumbled over the following behaviour, introduced with 8.3,
and wondered if this is by design or an oversight.
No, this was in 8.2.
Ah, sorry - I'm porting an app from 8.1 straight to 8.3, and blindly
assumes that i'd have
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What seems worse is that it still fails even if you declare the domain
> to have a default value.
Hmm, that seems like it could be a bug. We don't currently consider
that a rowtype includes the parent table's defaults or constraints.
But if we are goi
"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just stumbled over the following behaviour, introduced with 8.3, and
> wondered if this is by design or an oversight.
No, this was in 8.2.
> If you define a domain over some existing type, constrain it to
> non-null values, and use that domain as
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
If you define a domain over some existing type, constrain it to
non-null values, and use that domain as a field type in a table
definition, it seems to be impossible to declare pl/pgsql variables
of that table's row type. The problem seems to be t
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
Hi
I just stumbled over the following behaviour, introduced with 8.3, and
wondered if this is by design or an oversight.
If you define a domain over some existing type, constrain it to
non-null values, and use that domain as a field type in a table
definition, it seem
Hi
I just stumbled over the following behaviour, introduced with 8.3, and
wondered if this is by design or an oversight.
If you define a domain over some existing type, constrain it to
non-null values, and use that domain as a field type in a table
definition, it seems to be impossible to decla
