Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Maybe it needs CASCADE/RESTRICT added?
> > Seems like overkill, considering that this is a very marginal feature.
> > I'm happy to decree that it works in whichever way is the easiest to
> > implement.
> In that case, it seems to me that it has to be default RESTRICT. If
> anything depend on it, it must fail. Otherwise when you do it, it could
> drop views, functions, everything.
Seems it should behave just like dropping a column of a table that
already has an index on it:
test=> CREATE TABLE test(x int, y int);
test=> CREATE INDEX ii ON test(y);
test=> ALTER TABLE test DROP COLUMN y;
test=> \d test
Column | Type | Modifiers
x | integer |
which I think means drop the index automatically.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-03-23 17:29:46|
|Subject: Re: bug in 7.4 SET WITHOUT OIDs |
|Previous:||From: Dustin Sallings||Date: 2004-03-23 17:18:11|
|Subject: Re: linked list rewrite|