this is a pretty minor thing, but i just dropped a table that is acted
on by a rule declared as part of another table and i'm wondering if this
is the expected (or more importantly the desired) behavior. basically
the rule deletes all of the rows of table two with same id as was
deleted in table one. when i drop table two, it lets me do it without
any notice of there being a rule that affects this table & then when i
try to do a delete on table one, it gives me an error. i'm not sure how
other databases handle this, but it seems to me that i should have at
least been warned that there is a dependency there when i dropped the
table if not being disallowed from dropping the table altogether until i
drop the rule.
jeff
