From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: LIST OWNED BY... |
Date: | 2012-02-29 18:27:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZnisALRzrc2BEZhVVVaq=1EfLF_5w6UhVq_koofjwcxQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>>> So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
>>> by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
>>
>> It's always been possible to do that:
>>
>> begin;
>> drop owned by joe;
>> rollback;
>>
>> I believe this is already the recommended approach if you're concerned
>> about what DROP CASCADE will do.
>
> No, the cascade part is fine. It's the objects which won't cause a
> cascade that are an issue. Putting it in a transaction for rolling
> back doesn't help find out what it intends to drop.
>
> How can the user tell what the statement would drop (ignoring cascades)?
It's certainly possible to write a query for this, but I think this
gets back to the old argument about whether every client (and every
end-user) should be required to reimplement this, or whether maybe we
ought to provide some server functionality around it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-02-29 18:32:48 | Re: controlling the location of server-side SSL files |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2012-02-29 18:23:29 | Re: LIST OWNED BY... |