Re: pg_depend

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Hmmm...an unadorned drop could remove the object without RESRICTing it or
> CASCADEing it.  Hence, if there are objects that depend on it, the object
> will be removed anyway, and dependent objects will not be touched. 

We could mark the objects(and their dependent objects) as *INVALID*.
They would revive when reference objects revive in the world of *name*s.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue