On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:26 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > C GG <cgg0...@gmail.com> writes: > > ...PostgreSQL 9.5... > > `DROP SCHEMA blah;` reports all the dependent objects and advises to > `DROP > > SCHEMA blah CASCADE;` ... > > > Will DROP ... CASCADE traverse the entire dependency tree for each of the > > dependent objects (potentially dropping something unintended), or will it > > stop at the first level and balk at any new transitive dependencies? > > The former. However, the list of dependencies it's showing you as > potentially dropped already includes transitive dependencies; there > aren't going to be "new" ones unless somebody is adding things > concurrently. >
That's good news! > > If you're feeling paranoid, you could always do > > begin; > drop ... cascade; > > and then look at the reported list of objects before deciding whether > to commit or roll back. > Me, paranoid? Yes. Yes I am. So I did that-- data=# begin; BEGIN data=# DROP SCHEMA blah CASCADE; NOTICE: drop cascades to 278 other objects DETAIL: drop cascades to type blah.timeclock_compute_hours_type ... and 178 other objects (see server log for list) data=# rollback; ROLLBACK data=# and I can't see any of the other 178 objects in the server log. I did see all the deadlock reports because I had left the transaction hanging open while I went rubbernecking. ;) Maybe my log level isn't detailed enough. Also-- it is interesting to note that the list that I was shown when I executed `DROP SCHEMA blah;` is only 100 objects long. So that tells me that there's 178 other entries I'm not seeing. Where's that tin-foil hat? Any suggestions for getting the names of the other 178 dependent objects? > > regards, tom lane > Thanks Tom. I don't say it enough: I _really_ appreciate you and your consistent excellent contributions to PostgreSQL and to the PostgreSQL community.
