Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Once pg_dump starts using the dependency information, it seems it could > > do the drops in the proper order, and when it detects > > mutually-dependent tables, it can use a single DROP CASCADE to remove > > them all --- seems like that is a TODO. > > You missed my point entirely. What if DROP CASCADE causes a drop of a > table that did not even exist in the source database, but was added in > the target after the initial data load? It seems unlikely that that is > desirable behavior for pg_restore. > > The correct use of dependency information would be to sort the DROPs > into an order that should succeed *without* CASCADE. (This will > actually happen for free AIUI, once pg_dump uses dependency info fully. > DROPping in the reverse of a safe creation order should work.)
Right, but how do you drop two tables that REFERENCE each other? Seems you have to use CASCADE in that case. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
