On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:27:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > > On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> 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 approach if you're concerned > >> about what DROP CASCADE will do. > > > > 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. > > > > How can the user tell what the statement would drop (ignoring cascades)? > > It's certainly possible to write a query for this, but I think this > gets back to the old argument about whether every client (and every > end-user) should be required to reimplement this, or whether maybe we > ought to provide some server functionality around it.
Is this a TODO? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
