[jira] Resolved: (DERBY-168) Can't ALTER a column to have a new DEFAULT value.

["Jean T. Anderson (JIRA)" <de...@db.apache.org>]

     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-168?page=all ]
     
Jean T. Anderson resolved DERBY-168:
------------------------------------

     Resolution: Fixed
    Fix Version: 10.1.0.0

Patch committed revision 169669.

> Can't ALTER a column to have a new DEFAULT value.
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: DERBY-168
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-168
>      Project: Derby
>         Type: Bug
>   Components: Documentation
>     Versions: 10.0.2.0
>  Environment: Windows XP SP1 Professional
>     Reporter: George Baklarz
>     Priority: Minor
>      Fix For: 10.1.0.0
>  Attachments: derby168.diff
>
> Documentation states that an existing column in a table can have a DEFAULT value added via the ALTER TABLE statement. Unfortunately, none of the syntax provided gives a way of accomplishing this. An equivalent command from DB2 would be:
> ALTER TABLE EMPL ALTER COLUMN BONUS SET DEFAULT 1000;
> Is this an error in the documentation, and omission in the product, or is there a different command to accomplish this?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Re: [jira] Resolved: (DERBY-168) Can't ALTER a column to have a new DEFAULT value.

[Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>]

Jean T. Anderson (JIRA) wrote:

>      [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-168?page=all ]
>      
> Jean T. Anderson resolved DERBY-168:
> ------------------------------------
> 
>      Resolution: Fixed
>     Fix Version: 10.1.0.0
> 
> Patch committed revision 169669.
> 
> 
>>Can't ALTER a column to have a new DEFAULT value.
>>-------------------------------------------------

The resolution was fixing the documentation right?

So technically the bug, according to its summary, is still open.

Because if I did some search on this feature in Jira, saw this summary
and saw that it was fixed, I would assume that Derby now supported the
functionality.

Maybe a sub-task for fixing the documentation should have been created
and marked as fixed, leaving the Derby-168 open as an improvement?

Dan.