On 29 February 2012 18:15, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com> wrote:
> On 29-02-2012 14:20, Thom Brown wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> DROP OWNED BY foo VERBOSE?
Or just change it to output a verbose notice without changing the syntax?
--
Thom