On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 01:27:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> > On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:
> >>> So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
> >>> by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
> >>
> >> It's always been possible to do that:
> >>
> >> begin;
> >> drop owned by joe;
> >> rollback;
> >>
> >> I believe this is already the recommended approach if you're concerned
> >> about what DROP CASCADE will do.
> >
> > No, the cascade part is fine. It's the objects which won't cause a
> > cascade that are an issue. Putting it in a transaction for rolling
> > back doesn't help find out what it intends to drop.
> >
> > How can the user tell what the statement would drop (ignoring cascades)?
>
> It's certainly possible to write a query for this, but I think this
> gets back to the old argument about whether every client (and every
> end-user) should be required to reimplement this, or whether maybe we
> ought to provide some server functionality around it.
Is this a TODO?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
