| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | 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 00:55:42 |
| Message-ID: | 3B538D0E.D286DA50@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Alex Pilosov writes:
>
> > > I'm not so convinced on that idea. Assume you're dropping object foo.
> > > You look at pg_depend and see that objects 145928, 264792, and 1893723
> > > depend on it. Great, what do you do now?
> > I believe someone else previously suggested this:
> >
> > drop <type> object [RESTRICT | CASCADE]
> >
> > to make use of dependency info.
>
> That was me. The point, however, was, given object id 145928, how the
> heck to you know what table this comes from?
>
Is it really determined that *DROP OBJECT* drops the objects
which are dependent on it ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Studenmund | 2001-07-17 01:31:21 | Re: pg_depend |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-07-17 00:15:58 | Re: ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN column SERIAL -- unexpected results |