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

Re: LIST OWNED BY...

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LIST OWNED BY...
Date: 2012-02-29 17:20:52
Message-ID: CAA-aLv77jiW6tvjqjc0VjkrGB7LdxeSnF=_Mvp1zm+SruJWT2w@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>> So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
>> by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
>
> It's always been possible to do that:
>
>        begin;
>        drop owned by joe;
>        rollback;
>
> I believe this is already the recommended approach if you're concerned
> about what DROP CASCADE will do.

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.

How can the user tell what the statement would drop (ignoring cascades)?

-- 
Thom

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-02-29 17:26:42
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-02-29 17:16:07
Subject: Re: LIST OWNED BY...

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