Re: pg_depend

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > I have found that many TODO items would benefit from a pg_depend table
> > that tracks object dependencies. TODO updated.
>
> I'm not so convinced on that idea. Assume you're dropping object foo.
> You look at pg_depend and see that objects 145928, 264792, and 1893723
> depend on it. Great, what do you do now?
I believe someone else previously suggested this:

drop <type> object [RESTRICT | CASCADE]

to make use of dependency info.

> Every system catalog (except the really badly designed ones) already
> contains dependency information. What might help is that we make the
> internal API for altering and dropping any kind of object more consistent
> and general so that they can call each other in the dependency case.
> (E.g., make sure none of them require whereToSendOutput or parser state as
> an argument.)
Yes, that's definitely requirement to implement the above...