Is there any progress on this cleanup? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fuhr wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:49:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Would it make sense for DROP TYPE to have some kind of limited > > > cascade so you could drop a type and its I/O functions at the same > > > time, but still get an error if other objects depend on the type? > > > > Seems pretty ugly. Maybe the thing to do is have a command that somehow > > reverts a type to the "shell" state, whereupon the deletion sequence can > > be the exact logical inverse of the creation sequence: > > I thought the same thing after the recent commits involving shell > types and got similarly stuck. > > Do people at least agree that a DROP TYPE that works without CASCADE > would be desirable? The rationale is the same as for other DROP > commands: drop the object if nothing depends on it, else raise an > error. That's impossible now because of the circular dependency > between a type and its I/O functions, which requires the use of > CASCADE. > > -- > Michael Fuhr > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
