On Friday 19 September 2003 16:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> writes:
> > On Friday 19 September 2003 09:00, btober@seaworthysys.com wrote:
> >> Is this supposed to work that way? I would expect field3 and field4 to
> >> have their respective column defaults assigned on the second INSERT (row
> >> B), just like on the first INSERT (row A).
> >
> > Hmm - well, you're explicitly telling it to insert VALUES (...,
> > new.field3, ...) so if new.field3 is null then it *should* do that.
>
> Exactly. The defaults attached to the underlying table determine what
> gets added to an INSERT into the underlying table. In this case, since
> the rule's INSERT specifies all the fields, there is no scope for those
> defaults to apply.
>
> What Berend actually wants is to attach column defaults to the *view*,
> so that they apply to an INSERT mentioning the view. You can do this in
> recent PG releases (7.3 for sure, not sure about 7.2) using ALTER TABLE
> ... ADD DEFAULT.
Hmm - didn't know that. Useful.
Am I right in thinking that *in theory* we should be able to "inherit" the
defaults to the view automatically?
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
