| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should this require CASCADE? |
| Date: | 2002-07-11 03:19:00 |
| Message-ID: | 12013.1026357540@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> As far as this question, seems with no RESTRICT/CASCADE, it fails, with
> RESTRICT it drops the trigger, and with CASCADE it drops the referencing
> table. Is that accurate?
Not at all. CASCADE would drop the foreign key constraint (including
the triggers that implement it), but not the other table. In my mind
the issue is whether RESTRICT mode should do the same, or report an
error.
I'm not eager to accept the idea that DROP-without-either-option should
behave in some intermediate fashion. I want it to be the same as
RESTRICT.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-11 03:24:34 | Re: Should this require CASCADE? |
| Previous Message | Bradley Baetz | 2002-07-11 03:15:13 | Re: [INTERFACES] [pgaccess-users] RE: bugzilla.pgaccess.org |