Re: [Firebird-devel] Adding NOT NULL fields with DEFAULT

[Rustam G. <fir...@ma...>]

Ann W. Harrison
> Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the only format that needs to
> store the default value is the format where the new not null field was
> added.  Only records of an older format could possibly have that field
> absent.

Seems, right. Only for *new not field* __with__ *default value*.
All other cases have no need for it. And that's why I, personally,
against this exception.

WBR, GR