Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil.sontakke@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Shouldn't the drop cascade have deleted comptype2 itself, instead of just
>> deleting the dependent column? Or this is the expected intentional
>> behaviour?
In the case of a table it's certainly the desired behavior that only
the column and not the whole table goes away. I don't see why composite
types should act differently.
regards, tom lane