Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Now, if someone wanted to say CASCADE|RESTRICT was > > required for DROP _only_ if there is some foreign key references to the > > table, I would be OK with that, but that's not what the standard says. > > But in fact that is not different from what I propose to do. Consider > what such a rule really means: > * if no dependencies exist for the object, go ahead and delete. > * if dependencies exist, complain. > How is that different from "the default behavior is RESTRICT"?
No, I support your ideas. We are allowing RESTRICT to be the default. What I was saying is that the standard _requiring_ RESTRICT or CASCADE was really strange, and I could understand such a requirement only if foreign keys existed on the table. Requiring it when no foreign keys exist is really weird. I agree we should default to RESTRICT in all cases. -- 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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
