> > > Consider the following on latest sources: > > postgres=# create type c3 as (y int, z c1);
Oops, please disregard the above copy-paste unwanted sql. > > postgres=# create type comptype1 as (elem1 int); > > postgres=# create type comptype2 as (elem1 int, elem2 comptype1); > postgres=# \d comptype2 > Composite type "public.comptype2" > Column | Type > --------+----------- > elem1 | integer > elem2 | comptype1 > > postgres=# drop type comptype1 cascade; > NOTICE: drop cascades to composite type comptype2 column elem2 > postgres=# \d comptype2 > Composite type "public.comptype2" > Column | Type > --------+--------- > elem1 | integer > > Shouldn't the drop cascade have deleted comptype2 itself, instead of just > deleting the dependent column? Or this is the expected intentional > behaviour? > > Regards, > Nikhils > -- > http://www.enterprisedb.com > -- http://www.enterprisedb.com
