> On Oct 6, 2021, at 10:20 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> Consistency is not having dangling pointers around to things which no
> longer exist- FK reference kind of things. Object management is about
> actual *removal* of full blown objects like roles, tables, etc. DROP
> TABLE ... CASCADE doesn't drop tables which haven an FK dependency on
> the dropped table, the FK is just removed.
Right, but DROP SCHEMA ... CASCADE does remove the tables within, no? I would
see alice being a member of role bob as being analogous to the foreign key
example, and charlie being owned by bob as being more like the table within a
schema.
I'm fine with using a different syntax for this if what i'm proposing violates
the spec. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how to interpret the spec (of
which i have no copy, mind you.) I'm trying to distinguish between statements
like X SHALL DO Y and X SHALL DO NOTHING BUT Y. I don't know if the spec
contains a concept of roles owning other roles, and if not, does it forbid that
concept? I should think that if that concept is a postgres extension not
present in the spec, then we can make it do anything we want.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
