Re: LIST OWNED BY...

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thom Brown
Тема Re: LIST OWNED BY...
Дата
Msg-id CAA-aLv77jiW6tvjqjc0VjkrGB7LdxeSnF=_Mvp1zm+SruJWT2w@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: LIST OWNED BY...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: LIST OWNED BY...  (Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>)
Re: LIST OWNED BY...  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:
>> So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
>> by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
>
> It's always been possible to do that:
>
>        begin;
>        drop owned by joe;
>        rollback;
>
> I believe this is already the recommended approach if you're concerned
> about what DROP CASCADE will do.

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.

How can the user tell what the statement would drop (ignoring cascades)?

--
Thom


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: LIST OWNED BY...
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2