composite types DROP..CASCADE behaviour - bug or intentional?
От | Nikhil Sontakke |
---|---|
Тема | composite types DROP..CASCADE behaviour - bug or intentional? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | a301bfd90902130415t7f40c333md0eeeb9fb8173609@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: composite types DROP..CASCADE behaviour - bug or intentional?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, <br /><br />Consider the following on latest sources:<br /><br />postgres=# create type c3 as (y int, z c1);<br />postgres=#create type comptype1 as (elem1 int);<br /><br />postgres=# create type comptype2 as (elem1 int, elem2 comptype1);<br/> postgres=# \d comptype2<br />Composite type "public.comptype2"<br /> Column | Type<br />--------+-----------<br/> elem1 | integer<br /> elem2 | comptype1<br /><br />postgres=# drop type comptype1 cascade;<br/>NOTICE: drop cascades to composite type comptype2 column elem2<br /> postgres=# \d comptype2<br />Compositetype "public.comptype2"<br /> Column | Type<br />--------+---------<br /> elem1 | integer<br /><br />Shouldn'tthe drop cascade have deleted comptype2 itself, instead of just deleting the dependent column? Or this is theexpected intentional behaviour?<br clear="all" /><br />Regards,<br />Nikhils<br />-- <br /><a href="http://www.enterprisedb.com">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: