On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Some experimentation suggests that we are smart about "DEFAULT NULL"
>>> unless the column type requires a length-coercion cast, in which
>>> case the default expression involves a function call, and that doesn't
>>> get elided.
>
>> Is there a warning about such behavior in the manual?
>> Is it useful to include it somewhere (not sure where though)?
>
> We could just rephrase the ALTER TABLE docs to say that the table
> rewrite is avoided if you omit the DEFAULT clause, rather than
> saying that a null default works.
>
How does the attached sound?
Wonder if a rewrite-warning is necessary?
--
Amit