Re: Should this require CASCADE?

Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>> DROP TABLE foo RESTRICT;
>>
>> Should this succeed? Or should it be necessary to say DROP CASCADE to
>> get rid of the foreign-key reference to foo?

> I think the above should fail. If someone was adding restrict since it
> was optional, I'd guess they were doing so in advance for the days when
> we'd actually restrict the drop.

Sorry if I wasn't clear: we never had the RESTRICT/CASCADE syntax at all
until now. What I'm intending though is that DROP with no option will
default to DROP RESTRICT, which means that a lot of cases that used to
be "gotchas" will now fail until you say CASCADE. I wrote RESTRICT in
my example just to emphasize that the intended behavior is RESTRICT.

So if you prefer, imagine same example but you merely say
DROP TABLE foo;
Does your answer change?

regards, tom lane