I think that is the proper behavior Tom. Also I agree with Bruce that this might be an oversight in the standard. That is why standards evolve. As I write this I am also sending a note to H2 asking about this very issue. The latest working draft still has this construct.
Dana > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Bruce Momjian > Cc: Groff, Dana; Jan Wieck; Stephan Szabo; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should this require CASCADE? > > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Now, if someone wanted to say CASCADE|RESTRICT was > > required for DROP _only_ if there is some foreign key > references to the > > table, I would be OK with that, but that's not what the > standard says. > > But in fact that is not different from what I propose to do. Consider > what such a rule really means: > * if no dependencies exist for the object, go ahead and delete. > * if dependencies exist, complain. > How is that different from "the default behavior is RESTRICT"? > > regards, tom lane > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
