po 3. 12. 2018 v 20:07 odesÃlatel C GG <cgg0...@gmail.com> napsal: > > > 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? >
you can use some of mentioned queries https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Pg_depend_display https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/78301/postgresql-dependencies-on-a-schema dependency is stored in pg_depend query - so you just to iterate over this table. Regards Pavel > >> >> 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. > >
