| From: | Szymon Guz <mabewlun(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas <maps(dot)on(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DROP CASCADE |
| Date: | 2012-09-29 16:21:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAFjNrYuR=8ydrpqJbUZhLgfRNnvLV267_yfA=SdF1nKCb7SUuA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 29 September 2012 18:08, Andreas <maps(dot)on(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Hi
> I encountered something that puzzled me a bit.
> Is it expected that DROP table CASCADE drops this table and just the
> foreign key constraints but not the refering tables?
>
> PG 9.2.1 on WinXP
>
>
>
Hi Andreas,
yes, it is expected, at least according to the documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/ddl-depend.html
"In this case, it doesn't remove the orders table, it only removes the
foreign key constraint."
- Szymon
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Farber | 2012-09-29 17:27:12 | Re: Would my postgresql 8.4.12 profit from doubling RAM? |
| Previous Message | Andreas | 2012-09-29 16:08:07 | DROP CASCADE |