> Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is it really determined that *DROP OBJECT* drops the objects
> > which are dependent on it ?
>
> DROP object CASCADE should work that way, because that's what the spec
> says.
>
> 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?
Don't forget RENAME.
And what do we do if two items depend on the same object.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
