Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@xxxxxxx> writes: >>> I just noticed that Postgres allows the following syntax: >>> create table foo >>> ( >>> id integer constraint id_default_value default 42 >>> ); > I'm wondering why this doesn't throw an error then. It's an implementation artifact --- our grammar regards everything after a column's type name as a list of column constraints. So "DEFAULT foo" has to be considered as one variant of column constraint. We could probably tweak the grammar enough so it didn't allow "CONSTRAINT name" to be prefixed to that one case, but there seems little point in adding complexity for that. The most it would accomplish is to break applications that are expecting this particular deviation from spec to work. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
