TBH, this sounds like a completely terrible idea. There are far too many
sorts of dependencies across which one would not expect ownership to
propagate; for example, use of a function in a view, or even just a
foreign key dependency between two tables.
I'm not even clear that there are *any* cases where this behavior is
wanted, other than perhaps ALTER OWNER on an extension --- and even there,
what you would want is altering the ownership of the member objects, but
not everything that depends on the member objects.
So basically, a generic CASCADE facility sounds like a lot of work to
produce something that would seldom be anything but a foot-gun.
DELETE FROM or TRUNCATE could be a foot-gun too, but it's not a reason to
remove tham. I faced with problem when I tried to change owner of datadase with
all objects inside. Think, this feature could be useful although it should
restricted to superuser obly.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
