From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DROP TABLE... CASCADE weirdness |
Date: | 2002-09-14 03:06:48 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0209132258070.28737-100000@cm-lcon1-46-187.cm.vtr.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane dijo:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> writes:
> > I understand what's going on and how to get the desired behavior, but
> > it's weird and I think it should be fixed if possible.
>
> Define why you consider this broken
On the first case, if I'm specifying to drop both tables, I don't want
to be bothered telling me that the second depends on the first: I have
already specified that I want it dropped.
On the second case (CASCADE), I'm trying to drop the second table, so I
do not want to be bothered telling me that it doesn't exist, because
that is exactly what I want.
> and what you would consider fixed.
In both cases (CASCADE and RESTRICT), both tables should be dropped
(after all, that's what I'm trying to do).
It's only an annoyance, and I suppose it's very difficult to "fix".
My solution would be first to fetch the whole list of OIDs to be dropped
and only then do the deletion.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>)
"Tiene valor aquel que admite que es un cobarde" (Fernandel)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-14 03:07:57 | Re: make installcheck in contrib |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-14 02:57:24 | Re: Inconsistent casts |