On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Jonah H. Harris (jonah.harris@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On 3/9/06, William ZHANG <uniware@zedware.org> wrote:
> > > Or should we let
> > > DROP TABLE foo CASCADE;
> > > to drop the SYNONYMS depended on the table?
> >
> > Yes, I don't see any reason not to allow a cascading table drop include
> > synonyms that reference them.
>
> Should a non-cascade drop fail or just implicitly drop the synonyms?
> I'm not sure which way I feel about this... Users with only 'select'
> permissions on a given object can't currently create objects which
> depend on that object (such that dropping the object would then require
> 'cascade'), can they?
I think a user can create a view to a table they only have select on right
now and that should prevent non-cascade drops as well.
