> Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
> > I think the idea was to have it default to CASCADE for this release, not
> > to break existing code right away.
>
> I never thought that. If we default to CASCADE then a DROP is likely to
> delete stuff that it would not have deleted in prior releases. That
> seems *far* more dangerous than "breaking existing code". I doubt
> there's much existing code that does automatic DROPs anyway, at least
> of things that might have dependencies.
Wow - I think defaulting to CASCADE is nuts! Surely RESTRICT should be the
safest default?
Chris