Re: Should this require CASCADE?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Now, if someone wanted to say CASCADE|RESTRICT was
> > required for DROP _only_ if there is some foreign key references to the
> > table, I would be OK with that, but that's not what the standard says.
>
> But in fact that is not different from what I propose to do. Consider
> what such a rule really means:
> * if no dependencies exist for the object, go ahead and delete.
> * if dependencies exist, complain.
> How is that different from "the default behavior is RESTRICT"?

No, I support your ideas. We are allowing RESTRICT to be the default.

What I was saying is that the standard _requiring_ RESTRICT or CASCADE
was really strange, and I could understand such a requirement only if
foreign keys existed on the table. Requiring it when no foreign keys
exist is really weird. I agree we should default to RESTRICT in all
cases.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026