Re: Should this require CASCADE?

I think that is the proper behavior Tom.

Also I agree with Bruce that this might be an oversight in the standard. That
is why standards evolve. As I write this I am also sending a note to H2 asking
about this very issue. The latest working draft still has this construct.

Dana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:36 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Groff, Dana; Jan Wieck; Stephan Szabo;
> pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should this require CASCADE?
>
>
> 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
>