RE: Postgre7.0.2 drop user bug

From: Matthew <matt(at)ctlno(dot)com>
To: "'Tom Lane '" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Matthew <matt(at)ctlno(dot)com>
Cc: "'hackers '" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Postgre7.0.2 drop user bug
Date: 2000-10-19 12:25:08
Message-ID: 183FA749499ED311B6550000F87E206C0C93E9@srv.ctlno.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Lane

>The correct fix is CommandCounterIncrement() in the DROP USER loop,
>so that later iterations can see the changes made by prior iterations.
>
> regards, tom lane

Since postgre now suppport referential integrity and cascading deletes,
wouldn't it make more sense to use that code to manage the relationship
between pg_user and pg_group (and probably a wealth of other system tables),
rather then having to write specific code to manage every relationship
between system tables, or are those types of constraints just not applicable
to system tables?

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-10-19 13:16:55 Re: Re: pg_dump docs
Previous Message Matthew 2000-10-19 12:15:14 RE: Postgre7.0.2 drop user bug