Hi, <br /><br />Consider the following on latest sources:<br /><br />postgres=# create type c3 as (y int, z c1);<br
/>postgres=#create type comptype1 as (elem1 int);<br /><br />postgres=# create type comptype2 as (elem1 int, elem2
comptype1);<br/> postgres=# \d comptype2<br />Composite type "public.comptype2"<br /> Column | Type<br
/>--------+-----------<br/> elem1 | integer<br /> elem2 | comptype1<br /><br />postgres=# drop type comptype1
cascade;<br/>NOTICE: drop cascades to composite type comptype2 column elem2<br /> postgres=# \d comptype2<br
/>Compositetype "public.comptype2"<br /> Column | Type<br />--------+---------<br /> elem1 | integer<br /><br
/>Shouldn'tthe drop cascade have deleted comptype2 itself, instead of just deleting the dependent column? Or this is
theexpected intentional behaviour?<br clear="all" /><br />Regards,<br />Nikhils<br />-- <br /><a
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/>