| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_depend |
| Date: | 2001-07-17 01:51:06 |
| Message-ID: | 22202.995334666@sss.pgh.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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-17 01:57:56 | Re: pg_depend |
| Previous Message | Bill Studenmund | 2001-07-17 01:31:21 | Re: pg_depend |