On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 9:23 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/29/23 12:11, Sebastien Flaesch wrote:
> Oh the use of default keyword is new to me, thanks for that.
>
> But to make PostgreSQL more Informix-compatible,
> zero should have been considered as well.
Perhaps.
1) Why? Down the road to compatibility with some undetermined group of
databases lies mayhem.
Sure. Unless it's opt-in, see below.
2) 0 can be a valid sequence value:
Of course. Yet, as above, if that is opt-in as specified in the `create table` DDL somehow, then why not?
BTW, default and 0 are not the same thing. You cannot bind "default" in place of
an integer-valued prepared-statement placeholder, in a binary mode insert. So it is
definitely not the same thing.
So while I can accept that not implementing that particular informix compatibility wart
is a perfectly valid position, for impl and maintenance cost, the arguments I've read so
far can be "easily" side-stepped from a technical perspective I suspect. FWIW.
