| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 17:57:38 |
| Message-ID: | 200403231257.38936.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 02:34, 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.
>
FWIW current behavior when dropping a column is to restrict it if there is a
view dependent on the column, however we automagically drop indexes on
columns when dropping columns without even a notice.
Point being that in the original case, I think the index on the oid column
should be dropped automagically, to follow similar behavior with normal
columns.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-23 18:01:57 | Re: bug in 7.4 SET WITHOUT OIDs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-23 17:29:46 | Re: bug in 7.4 SET WITHOUT OIDs |