On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is this a TODO?
If you're going to create one, link to Álvaro's message. But I'm not
sure we should without a better sense of what we actually want to do,
from the options he laid out.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:27:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Thom Brown writes:
> >>> So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
> >>> by a particular role, or al
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié feb 29 17:50:14 -0300 2012:
> On 29 February 2012 20:33, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
> wrote:
> > On 29-02-2012 15:23, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> Or just change it to output a verbose notice without changing the syntax?
> >>
> > I can't see why we will do it o
On 29 February 2012 20:33, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> On 29-02-2012 15:23, Thom Brown wrote:
>> Or just change it to output a verbose notice without changing the syntax?
>>
> I can't see why we will do it only for DROP OWNED. Chat messages are annoying
> unless the user asks for it (that's
On 29-02-2012 15:23, Thom Brown wrote:
> Or just change it to output a verbose notice without changing the syntax?
>
I can't see why we will do it only for DROP OWNED. Chat messages are annoying
unless the user asks for it (that's why I suggested VERBOSE).
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timb
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thom Brown writes:
>>> So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
>>> by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
>>
>> It's always been possible to do t
On 29 February 2012 18:15, Euler Taveira de Oliveira 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.
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?
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira -
On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
>> by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
>
> It's always been possible to do that:
>
> begin;
> drop owned by joe;
>
Thom Brown writes:
> So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
> by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
It's always been possible to do that:
begin;
drop owned by joe;
rollback;
I believe this is already the recommended ap
Hi all,
If someone wants to drop objects owned by a particular role, they'll
use DROP OWNED BY role. However, the implications of this statement
aren't easily known, and once you've run it, it's not communicated
which objects were dropped.
So could we introduce either a command to show which obj
11 matches
Mail list logo
