Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As far as this question, seems with no RESTRICT/CASCADE, it fails, with > > RESTRICT it drops the trigger, and with CASCADE it drops the referencing > > table. Is that accurate? > > Not at all. CASCADE would drop the foreign key constraint (including > the triggers that implement it), but not the other table. In my mind > the issue is whether RESTRICT mode should do the same, or report an > error. > > I'm not eager to accept the idea that DROP-without-either-option should > behave in some intermediate fashion. I want it to be the same as > RESTRICT.
Sounds good to me, and I don't think we need to require RESTRICT just because the standard says so. Does the standard require RESTRICT for every DROP or just drops that have foreign keys? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
