| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, denisa(dot)cirstescu(at)asentinel(dot)com, "pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Undocumented behavior od DROP SCHEMA ... CASCADE |
| Date: | 2016-08-12 22:48:51 |
| Message-ID: | 29387.1471042131@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> David G. Johnston wrote:
>> If we are looking to improve things here I'd at least consider having the
>> default cascade to be safe and not drop persisted data (I suppose that
>> could functions linked to functional indexes...) and have a separate flag
>> that would also be permitted to destroy data. Having such a dependency
>> listing query distinguish between data-loss and other would be a good
>> intermediate step.
> Well, if you happen to drop a view for which you no longer have the
> definition, you may be similarly screwed. I prefer the approach that we
> consider all drops as potentially dangerous.
There's also the minor problem that the SQL standard is quite clear about
what DROP CASCADE means, and it ain't that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-12 22:58:32 | Re: Undocumented behavior od DROP SCHEMA ... CASCADE |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-08-12 22:28:36 | Re: Undocumented behavior od DROP SCHEMA ... CASCADE |