Greetings, * Mark Dilger (mark.dil...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2021, at 11:30 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> Because we've already decided how object ownership works. I didn't write > >> any code to have roles get dropped when their owners get dropped. I just > >> put ownership into the system and this is how it naturally works. So you > >> are advocating that DROP...CASCADE works one way for every object type > >> save one. I think that's an incredibly unclean design. Having > >> DROP...CASCADE work the same way for all ownership relations for all > >> object types without exception makes so much more sense to me. > > > > We've decided how object ownership works related to DROP ROLE ... > > CASCADE..? I don't follow how that is the case. What we *do* have is > > dependency handling, but that isn't the same as ownership. > > We have a concept of objects being owned, and we prohibit the owner being > NULL. You've already said upthread that DROP ROLE bob CASCADE must revoke > "bob" from other roles, must remove "bob", and must not fail. How do you > handle this?
Uh, I didn't say it 'must not fail'. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
