Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
> "Robert B. Easter" wrote:
> > This contrasts with UNDER, where a subtable does maintain a link to its
> > supertable in order to cascade inserts etc to the supertable for the subrow it
> > inherited.
>
> What you have just described for the behaviour of UNDER (as opposed to
> implementation) is just how INHERITS works now. i.e. you can't destroy
> the parent unless there are no children.
We could supply DROP TABLE parent CASCADE; syntax to destroy bot parent and
all
inherited tables.
---------------------
Hannu
