On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 12:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> While poking at the complaint reported here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-10/msg01484.php
> I realized that there is a related issue for null defaults. Consider
>
> create table p (f1 int default 0);
> create table c (f1 int);
> alter table c inherit p;
Seems more like an unwanted looseness in the meaning of an ALTER
TABLE .. INHERIT to me. I'd prefer it if we added some extra clauses to
ALTER TABLE:
[ { INCLUDING | EXCLUDING } { DEFAULTS | CONSTRAINTS | INDEXES } ]
> At this point, c.f1 has no default, or NULL default if you prefer.
> However, pg_dump dumps this configuration as
>
> create table p (f1 int default 0);
> create table c (f1 int) inherits (p);
>
> so after a reload c.f1 will have default 0 because it'll inherit that
> from p.
>
> I tried to fix this by having pg_dump insert an explicit DEFAULT NULL
> clause for c.f1, which turned out to be not too hard, but on testing
> it did nothing at all --- c.f1 still reloaded with default 0!
>
> Poking into it, I find that it seems to be another case of the lesson
> we should have learned some time ago: embedding semantic knowledge in
> gram.y is usually a Bad Idea. gram.y "knows" that it can throw away
> DEFAULT NULL --- see the exprIsNullConstant() uses therein. So the
> clause never makes it to the place in tablecmds.c where we consider
> whether to adopt inherited defaults or not.
>
> ISTM this is a backend bug: if I tell it DEFAULT NULL, by golly I
> should get DEFAULT NULL.
Agreed.
-- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
