| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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: | 2002-07-12 01:29:09 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOGEBICDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
With all this dependency stuff, what happens with the ALTER TABLE / DROP NOT
NULL syntax we came up with?
Maybe we should allow RESTRICT/CASCADE on that syntax and if restrict is
specified, you can't drop it if a primary key depends on it and if cascade
is specified it will drop the primary key...
Just for consistency...
Also, when talking about whether or not the index supporting a constraint
should be sort of 'hidden' from the user, should not we change pg_dump to
dump unique indices using the ALTER TABLE syntax, rather than the CREATE
UNIQUE INDEX syntax? Otherwise this information will be lost.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-07-12 01:34:19 | Re: [PATCHES] Changes in /contrib/fulltextindex |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2002-07-12 01:00:06 | Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly |