On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:28 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I in general dislike throwing up barriers that prevent objects from > being dropped. As a user, I find such rules frustrating, especially if > I'm still allowed to accomplish the same drop indirectly by some > series of commands (e.g. REVOKE first, then DROP). If I'm allowed to > do it indirectly, then I should also be allowed to it directly, at > least in cases where there's only one way of fixing the problem that > is preventing me from doing the DROP, which I think is the case here. > For example, if bob owns a tractor and I want to DROP bob but the > tractor is indestructible, then it's reasonable to make the operation > fail. I need to give away bob's tractor before I drop him. But here, > if I say I want to DROP ROLE b, I'm going to have to first REVOKE c > FROM b -- there is no real other alternative. So why not make that > happen automatically? When I say I want to DROP something, I'm > serious: I really want it gone. > > I'd rather that intent be communicated through CASCADE than just assumed, but I agree with the general point. David J.
