Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: bug in 7.4 SET WITHOUT OIDs

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
Subject: Re: bug in 7.4 SET WITHOUT OIDs
Date: 2004-03-23 17:22:26
Message-ID: 200403231722.i2NHMQl16668@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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);
	CREATE TABLE
	test=> CREATE INDEX ii ON test(y);
	CREATE INDEX
	test=> ALTER TABLE test DROP COLUMN y;
	ALTER TABLE
	test=> \d test
	     Table "public.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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-03-23 17:29:46
Subject: Re: bug in 7.4 SET WITHOUT OIDs
Previous:From: Dustin SallingsDate: 2004-03-23 17:18:11
Subject: Re: linked list rewrite

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group