Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Once pg_dump starts using the dependency information, it seems it could
> > do the drops in the proper order, and when it detects
> > mutually-dependent tables, it can use a single DROP CASCADE to remove
> > them all --- seems like that is a TODO.
>
> You missed my point entirely. What if DROP CASCADE causes a drop of a
> table that did not even exist in the source database, but was added in
> the target after the initial data load? It seems unlikely that that is
> desirable behavior for pg_restore.
>
> The correct use of dependency information would be to sort the DROPs
> into an order that should succeed *without* CASCADE. (This will
> actually happen for free AIUI, once pg_dump uses dependency info fully.
> DROPping in the reverse of a safe creation order should work.)
Right, but how do you drop two tables that REFERENCE each other? Seems
you have to use CASCADE in that case.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
