On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:49:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Would it make sense for DROP TYPE to have some kind of limited > > cascade so you could drop a type and its I/O functions at the same > > time, but still get an error if other objects depend on the type? > > Seems pretty ugly. Maybe the thing to do is have a command that somehow > reverts a type to the "shell" state, whereupon the deletion sequence can > be the exact logical inverse of the creation sequence:
I thought the same thing after the recent commits involving shell types and got similarly stuck. Do people at least agree that a DROP TYPE that works without CASCADE would be desirable? The rationale is the same as for other DROP commands: drop the object if nothing depends on it, else raise an error. That's impossible now because of the circular dependency between a type and its I/O functions, which requires the use of CASCADE. -- Michael Fuhr ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
