Re: Bug on drop extension dependencies ?

From: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug on drop extension dependencies ?
Date: 2025-07-13 14:24:36
Message-ID: CAB-JLwZztK7EjqxZy-ot-zOFUm8SNmzJyALs-p7rZG3xfen7Nw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Em sáb., 12 de jul. de 2025 às 16:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escreveu:

> Indeed. If we put a restriction on this case then we'd just need to
> invent a "REALLY CASCADE" option that did the more aggressive thing.
>

I understand that it's not possible to prevent DROP ... CASCADE from
executing. However, the subsequent deletion of constraints, triggers, or
functions will affect the behavior of other schemas, so I think it's
reasonable to at least explicitly state in the log which objects were
deleted due to that command.

regards
Marcos

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florents Tselai 2025-07-13 15:08:27 Re: add function for creating/attaching hash table in DSM registry
Previous Message Rintaro Ikeda 2025-07-13 14:15:24 Re: Suggestion to add --continue-client-on-abort option to pgbench