[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6420?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kim Haase updated DERBY-6420:
-----------------------------
Attachment: DERBY-6420.zip
DERBY-6420.stat
DERBY-6420.diff
Thanks, Knut, for the very clear list of needed changes. I'm attaching
DERBY-6420.diff, DERBY-6420.stat, and DERBY-6420.zip, with these changes:
M src/ref/rrefdropfunctionstatement.dita
M src/ref/rrefsqljdroptype.dita
M src/ref/rrefsqlj34148.dita
M src/ref/rrefdropprocedurestatement.dita
M src/ref/rrefsqlj61102.dita
M src/ref/rrefsqljdropsynonym.dita
I am wondering if the DROP PROCEDURE and DROP FUNCTION statements should use
parallel language?
I changed the list of errors in the DROP PROCEDURE topic to be closer to those
in DROP FUNCTION. I am wondering if it would be useful to do something similar
for DROP VIEW and DROP TABLE, since the language for DROP TABLE is rather
convoluted.
I simplified the language in DROP VIEW from "is disallowed" to "fails" --
perhaps that should be changed to "generates an error"?
> Clarify how DROP statements work on trigger dependencies
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6420
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6420
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Documentation
> Affects Versions: 10.11.0.0
> Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Assignee: Kim Haase
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: DERBY-6420.diff, DERBY-6420.stat, DERBY-6420.zip
>
>
> Some of the DROP statement topics don't mention what happens if an object
> depended on by a trigger gets dropped. We should add this information. The
> behaviour should be more consistent after DERBY-2041.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
