On Mon, 27 May 2002 19:28:30 -0400
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> This has been hashed out in several prior threads, and in fact I think
> Brent Verner has a nearly-ready-to-go patch implementing the agreed-on
> behavior. Now that I think about it, your patch is heading off in a
> quite different direction from what was agreed to: we were never
> intending that omitting trailing fields would be the cue for inserting
> default values. Without a way to specify a target column list, that's
> far too restrictive; and with it, it's unnecessary.
Ok, sounds fair. I think my patch is an improvement over the current
behavior (if you're going to silently insert arbitrary data for
missing attributes, I'd say the default value is a better choice
than NULL), but I would agree that this kind of behavior as a whole
is not optimal. Assuming that the patch from Brent materializes, I'll
be happy to take his solution over mine.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
