| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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: | 2002-07-12 03:08:41 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOAEBLCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > With all this dependency stuff, what happens with the ALTER
> TABLE / DROP NOT
> > NULL syntax we came up with?
>
> Nothing, AFAICS. NOT NULL doesn't have any dependency implications.
What about the primary keys that I mentioned? In the current
implementation, it's restrict-only.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-07-12 03:09:25 | Re: Jan's Name (Was: Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-12 03:04:54 | Re: Jan's Name (Was: Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly) |