Re: User-friendliness for DROP RESTRICT/CASCADE
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: User-friendliness for DROP RESTRICT/CASCADE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1025135506.1123.151.camel@jester обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: User-friendliness for DROP RESTRICT/CASCADE (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: User-friendliness for DROP RESTRICT/CASCADE
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 22:30, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes: > > It would be nice if the recursive dependency checking function was > > available as an end user function too, so you could analyze dependencies > > before even trying to drop something, or even just to understand a > > database schema you've inherited from someone else. > > It'd be a pretty trivial exercise to build something that looks at the > pg_depend entries and generates whatever kind of display you want. > > David Kaplan reminded me that there is another UI issue to be > considered: when we *are* doing a DROP CASCADE, should the dropped > dependent objects be reported somehow? As it stands, Rod's patch emits > elog(NOTICE) messages in this case, but I am wondering whether that will > be seen as useful or merely annoying chatter. If the notices about implicit drops (triggers on tables, etc.) has been found to be useful in both creation and destruction then I would assume that this information would be wanted as well. If the above information has not been found to be useful in the past, then I would expect it to continue as chatter. Personally, I find it to be chatter and turn off NOTICES in general, but believe it to be consistent with similar messages in the past.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: