IMHO, I believe that the standard should be adhered to if at all possible.
Since Cascade was added, Restrict must be the default is my reading of the
standard.
So that everyone can talk from the same sheet, the 1999 SQL Standard for DROP
TABLE follows:
11.20
Function
Destroy a table.
Format
:
ete: all these references are to: ISO/IEC 9075-2:1999 "Foundation"
-----Original Message-
From: Groff, Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:30 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should this require CASCADE?
IMHO, I believe tha
I think that we are getting into two or three issues here. If I may:
(1) Is DROP TABLE acceptable by the standard?
(2) Should we break "old" functionality?
(3) assuming we support the old syntax:
should DROP TABLE be functionally the same as
IMHO, I believe that the standard should be adhered to if at all possible.
Since Cascade was added, Restrict must be the default is my reading of the
standard.
So that everyone can talk from the same sheet, the 1999 SQL Standard for DROP
TABLE follows:
11.20
Function
Destroy a table.
Format
:
> -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 <[
y
requires we also support the standard syntax.
Dana
> -----Original Message-
> From: Groff, Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:43 PM
> To: 'Tom Lane'; Bruce Momjian
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should this require
