Re: Should this require CASCADE?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should this require CASCADE?
Date: 2002-07-11 02:20:07
Message-ID: 6164.1026354007@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> I think the idea was to have it default to CASCADE for this release, not
> to break existing code right away.

I never thought that. If we default to CASCADE then a DROP is likely to
delete stuff that it would not have deleted in prior releases. That
seems *far* more dangerous than "breaking existing code". I doubt
there's much existing code that does automatic DROPs anyway, at least
of things that might have dependencies.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-07-11 02:24:45 Re: Should this require CASCADE?
Previous Message Curt Sampson 2002-07-11 02:19:53 Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly