Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Is it expected for DROP TABLE CASCADE to find a related table but not drop
> it?
> The case in point, is when the base table is used as a column type.
> This can at least be reproduced in v9.6 and v10, where it silently drops
> the column!
Dropping the column is exactly what is supposed to happen: the scope
of the dependency is defined to be just the column of that type, not
the table containing it.
Not sure if this is documented anyplace in the SGML docs, but I'm
pretty sure we have regression test cases for it.
regards, tom lane