Re: DROP VIEW code question
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DROP VIEW code question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2219.971815421@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: DROP VIEW code question (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > I don't know how it looks now, but the "DROP TABLE x, y, z" was pretty > broken a while ago. For example, if there was some sort of dependency > between the tables (foreign keys?) it would abort and leave an > inconsistent state. I'm not very fond of this extension, but keep the > issue in mind. This is just a special case of the generic problem that you can't roll back a DROP TABLE. That'll be fixed by 7.1, so I see no reason not to allow the more convenient syntax. BTW, Mark, the reason utility.c implements T_DropStmt with two loops is presumably to try to avoid the rollback-drop-table problem; but it's inherently bogus because not all error conditions can be checked there. You could fold the two loops into one loop, and/or remove any checks that are redundant with RemoveRelation itself. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: