| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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 02:24:45 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOOEBDCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| 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.
Wow - I think defaulting to CASCADE is nuts! Surely RESTRICT should be the
safest default?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-07-11 02:27:06 | Re: [INTERFACES] [pgaccess-users] RE: bugzilla.pgaccess.org |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-11 02:20:07 | Re: Should this require CASCADE? |