Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: ON UPDATE REMOVE foreign key action

2016-10-04 Thread Vitaly Burovoy
On 10/4/16, Kirill Berezin wrote: > Disclaimer: sorry, i dont understand, should i reply to each of you > personally, or just answer to channel. Some feedbacks were sended in > personal, and some include channel copy. Usually discussions are in the list, therefore you should

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: ON UPDATE REMOVE foreign key action

2016-10-04 Thread Kirill Berezin
Disclaimer: sorry, i dont understand, should i reply to each of you personally, or just answer to channel. Some feedbacks were sended in personal, and some include channel copy. Thanks for responses, you understand it correctly. When i said "anybody", i mean inclusive owner himself. For example

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: ON UPDATE REMOVE foreign key action

2016-10-03 Thread Vitaly Burovoy
On 10/3/16, Kirill Berezin wrote: > *One-line Summary:* On foreign key update we unable to remove all depended > records. Currently we have "ON REMOVE CASCADE DELETE", but no "ON UPDATE > CASCADE DELETE". We can only update field to NULL or DEFAULT. I think there are three

[HACKERS] Proposal: ON UPDATE REMOVE foreign key action

2016-10-03 Thread Kirill Berezin
*One-line Summary:* On foreign key update we unable to remove all depended records. Currently we have "ON REMOVE CASCADE DELETE", but no "ON UPDATE CASCADE DELETE". We can only update field to NULL or DEFAULT. *Business Use-case:* Cache expiration on hash/version update. Revoke all access on