| From: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | composite types DROP..CASCADE behaviour - bug or intentional? |
| Date: | 2009-02-13 12:15:18 |
| Message-ID: | a301bfd90902130415t7f40c333md0eeeb9fb8173609@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Consider the following on latest sources:
postgres=# create type c3 as (y int, z c1);
postgres=# create type comptype1 as (elem1 int);
postgres=# create type comptype2 as (elem1 int, elem2 comptype1);
postgres=# \d comptype2
Composite type "public.comptype2"
Column | Type
--------+-----------
elem1 | integer
elem2 | comptype1
postgres=# drop type comptype1 cascade;
NOTICE: drop cascades to composite type comptype2 column elem2
postgres=# \d comptype2
Composite type "public.comptype2"
Column | Type
--------+---------
elem1 | integer
Shouldn't the drop cascade have deleted comptype2 itself, instead of just
deleting the dependent column? Or this is the expected intentional
behaviour?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikhil Sontakke | 2009-02-13 12:17:07 | Re: composite types DROP..CASCADE behaviour - bug or intentional? |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2009-02-13 12:06:15 | Re: GIN fast insert |