Re: pg_depend

> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Is it really determined that *DROP OBJECT* drops the objects
> > which are dependent on it ?
> 
> DROP object CASCADE should work that way, because that's what the spec
> says.
> 
> Whether the default DROP behavior should be CASCADE, RESTRICT, or the
> current laissez-faire behavior remains to be debated ;-).  The spec
> is no help since it has no default: DROP *requires* a CASCADE or
> RESTRICT option in SQL92.  But I doubt our users will let us get away
> with changing the syntax that way.  So, once we have the CASCADE and
> RESTRICT options implemented, we'll need to decide what an unadorned
> DROP should do.  Opinions anyone?

Don't forget RENAME.

And what do we do if two items depend on the same object.


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026