| From: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)zembu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_depend |
| Date: | 2001-07-17 01:31:21 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.21.0107161830280.642-100000@candlekeep.home-net.internetconnect.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > Alex Pilosov writes:
> >
> > > drop <type> object [RESTRICT | CASCADE]
> > >
> > > to make use of dependency info.
> >
> > That was me. The point, however, was, given object id 145928, how the
> > heck to you know what table this comes from?
> >
>
> Is it really determined that *DROP OBJECT* drops the objects
> which are dependent on it ?
If you used DROP OBJECT CASCADE, yes. That's what CASCADE is saying.
I think the idea is that you can say what happens - delete dependents, or
do something else.
Take care,
Bill
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-17 01:51:06 | Re: pg_depend |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-07-17 00:55:42 | Re: pg_depend |