From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: LIST OWNED BY... |
Date: | 2012-02-29 17:20:52 |
Message-ID: | CAA-aLv77jiW6tvjqjc0VjkrGB7LdxeSnF=_Mvp1zm+SruJWT2w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>> So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
>> by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
>
> It's always been possible to do that:
>
> begin;
> drop owned by joe;
> rollback;
>
> I believe this is already the recommended approach if you're concerned
> about what DROP CASCADE will do.
No, the cascade part is fine. It's the objects which won't cause a
cascade that are an issue. Putting it in a transaction for rolling
back doesn't help find out what it intends to drop.
How can the user tell what the statement would drop (ignoring cascades)?
--
Thom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-02-29 17:26:42 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-29 17:16:07 | Re: LIST OWNED BY... |