On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 2:18 AM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Robert and Tom, for sharing your valuable insights, and
> apologies for the slight delay in my response. From the discussion,
> what I understand is that we aim to extend the current DROP ROLE
> syntax to include the CASCADE/RESTRICT option, which has been
> introduced in the latest SQL standard, as mentioned by Tom. However,
> as Robert pointed out, implementing the CASCADE option for handling
> dependent objects that span multiple databases is not feasible at the
> moment. The RESTRICT option, as I understand it, is already the
> default behavior. Therefore, we will proceed with implementing the
> CASCADE/RESTRICT syntax specifically for handling dependent roles,
> rather than the dependent database objects like tables, views, etc.,
> which can span multiple databases.
I would be fairly strongly opposed to implementing RESTRICT and
CASCADE but having them only apply to role grants and not other
database objects.
I'm not entirely certain what the right thing to do is here, but I
don't think it's that.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
