Re: Should this require CASCADE?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Now, if someone wanted to say CASCADE|RESTRICT was
> > required for DROP _only_ if there is some foreign key references to the
> > table, I would be OK with that, but that's not what the standard says.
> 
> But in fact that is not different from what I propose to do.  Consider
> what such a rule really means:
>     * if no dependencies exist for the object, go ahead and delete.
>     * if dependencies exist, complain.
> How is that different from "the default behavior is RESTRICT"?

No, I support your ideas.  We are allowing RESTRICT to be the default.

What I was saying is that the standard _requiring_ RESTRICT or CASCADE
was really strange, and I could understand such a requirement only if
foreign keys existed on the table.  Requiring it when no foreign keys
exist is really weird.  I agree we should default to RESTRICT in all
cases.

--  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