| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Groff, Dana" <Dana(dot)Groff(at)filetek(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should this require CASCADE? |
| Date: | 2002-07-11 16:36:06 |
| Message-ID: | 29811.1026405366@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Now, if someone wanted to say CASCADE|RESTRICT was
> required for DROP _only_ if there is some foreign key references to the
> table, I would be OK with that, but that's not what the standard says.
But in fact that is not different from what I propose to do. Consider
what such a rule really means:
* if no dependencies exist for the object, go ahead and delete.
* if dependencies exist, complain.
How is that different from "the default behavior is RESTRICT"?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Groff, Dana | 2002-07-11 16:43:18 | Re: Should this require CASCADE? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-11 16:27:30 | Re: Should this require CASCADE? |