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

Re: LIST OWNED BY...

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LIST OWNED BY...
Date: 2012-02-29 18:23:29
Message-ID: CAA-aLv445K4kjuTgrin2xkcY8OgucNT5pjJLzMf6uaPN=5nzZw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 29 February 2012 18:15, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> wrote:
> On 29-02-2012 14:20, Thom Brown wrote:
>> No, the cascade part is fine.  It's the objects which won't cause a
>> cascade that are an issue.  Putting it in a transaction for rolling
>> back doesn't help find out what it intends to drop.
>>
> DROP OWNED BY foo VERBOSE?

Or just change it to output a verbose notice without changing the syntax?

-- 
Thom

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-02-29 18:27:43
Subject: Re: LIST OWNED BY...
Previous:From: Euler Taveira de OliveiraDate: 2012-02-29 18:15:53
Subject: Re: LIST OWNED BY...

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