On 29 February 2012 18:15, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eu...@timbira.com> wrote: > On 29-02-2012 14:20, Thom Brown wrote: >> No, the cascade part is fine. It's the objects which won't cause a >> cascade that are an issue. Putting it in a transaction for rolling >> back doesn't help find out what it intends to drop. >> > DROP OWNED BY foo VERBOSE?
Or just change it to output a verbose notice without changing the syntax? -- Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
