From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_depend |
Date: | 2001-07-17 01:57:56 |
Message-ID: | 200107170157.f6H1vuZ21601@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Is it really determined that *DROP OBJECT* drops the objects
> > which are dependent on it ?
>
> DROP object CASCADE should work that way, because that's what the spec
> says.
>
> Whether the default DROP behavior should be CASCADE, RESTRICT, or the
> current laissez-faire behavior remains to be debated ;-). The spec
> is no help since it has no default: DROP *requires* a CASCADE or
> RESTRICT option in SQL92. But I doubt our users will let us get away
> with changing the syntax that way. So, once we have the CASCADE and
> RESTRICT options implemented, we'll need to decide what an unadorned
> DROP should do. Opinions anyone?
Don't forget RENAME.
And what do we do if two items depend on the same object.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2001-07-17 02:01:31 | RE: ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN column SERIAL -- unexpected results |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-17 01:51:06 | Re: pg_depend |