> > No, I wouldn't expect that at all. A default is inserted when you
> > don't supply anything at all for the column. Inserting an explicit
> > NULL means you want a NULL, and barring a NOT NULL constraint on
> > the column, that's what the system ought to insert. I can see no
> > possible justification for creating a type-specific exception to
> > that behavior.
> >
> > If the original asker really wants to substitute something else for
> > an explicit null insertion, he could do it with a rule or a trigger.
> > But I don't think SERIAL ought to act that way all by itself.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
>
> I agree with tom.
>
> If you don't want the user to be able to insert NULL, specify
> NOT NULL explicitly. And if you want to force a default
> behaviour, use a trigger (a rule can't do - sorry).
I thought Informix put the nextval with NULL, but I now see they do it
with zero, which is pretty strange.
Never mind.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
