Is there any progress on this cleanup?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> 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
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
-- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
