> On Oct 6, 2021, at 1:48 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> This specific syntax, including the CASCADE bit, has, at minimum, at least
> been contemplate by the SQL folks sufficiently to be described in one
> specific way. I don’t have a copy of 2016 handy, unfortunately, and so I’m
> not sure if it’s described that way in a “stable” version of the standard or
> not (it isn’t defined in the 2006 draft I’ve seen), but ultimately I don’t
> think we are really talking about entirely net-new syntax here…
>
> If we were, that would be different and perhaps we would just be guessing at
> what the standard might do in the future, but I don’t think it’s an open
> ended question at this point..
>
> (Even if it was, I have to say that the direction that they’re going in
> certainly seems consistent to me, anyway, with what’s been done in the past
> and I think it’d be bad of us to go in a different direction from that since
> it’d be difficult for us to change it later when the new spec comes out and
> contradicts what we decided to do..)
Assuming no concept of role ownership exists, but that DROP ROLE bob CASCADE is
implemented in a spec compliant way, if there is a role "bob" who owns various
objects, what happens when DROP ROLE bob CASCADE is performed? Do bob's
objects get dropped, do they get orphaned, or do they get assigned to some
other owner? I would expect that they get dropped, but I'd like to know what
the spec says about it before going any further with this discussion.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
