Re: pg_depend
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_depend |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.30.0107171831430.678-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_depend (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_depend
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian writes: > Is it? Are we going to record dependency both ways, e.g primary table > -> foreign table and foreign table -> primary table, or just one of > them. And when we see we depend on something, do we know always what it > could be. If I drop a table and I depend on oid XXX, do I know if that > is a type, function, or serial sequence? When you drop a table, there are only so many things that could depend on it: * rules/views * triggers * check constraints * foreign key constraints * primary key constraints * unique constraints * subtables including their dependencies. There might be others I forgot but a finite list can be defined. When a table is dropped, you scan all of these objects (their system catalogs) for matches against the table and either do a cascade or restrict. This is not new, we already do this for indexes and descriptions, for instance. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: