On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:49:13PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> > Would it make sense for DROP TYPE to have some kind of limited
> > cascade so you could drop a type and its I/O functions at the same
> > time, but still get an error if other objects depend on the type?
>
> Seems pretty ugly. Maybe the thing to do is have a command that somehow
> reverts a type to the "shell" state, whereupon the deletion sequence can
> be the exact logical inverse of the creation sequence:
I thought the same thing after the recent commits involving shell
types and got similarly stuck.
Do people at least agree that a DROP TYPE that works without CASCADE
would be desirable? The rationale is the same as for other DROP
commands: drop the object if nothing depends on it, else raise an
error. That's impossible now because of the circular dependency
between a type and its I/O functions, which requires the use of
CASCADE.
--
Michael Fuhr
