| From: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_depend |
| Date: | 2001-07-16 22:39:32 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.10.10107161836180.30275-100000@spider.pilosoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Alex Pilosov writes:
>
> > > 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.
>
> That was me. The point, however, was, given object id 145928, how the
> heck to you know what table this comes from?
have a view pg_objecttype which is a UNION across all the [relevant]
system tables sounds fine to me, but maybe I'm missing something?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-16 23:13:54 | Re: pg_depend |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-07-16 22:23:07 | Re: pg_depend |