Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D98B475E97 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:24:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD463475E5E for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89JOIKo012925; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:24:18 -0400 (EDT) To: Rod Taylor Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: RESTRICT / CASCADE In-reply-to: <1031427051.15580.11.camel@jester> References: <1031427051.15580.11.camel@jester> Comments: In-reply-to Rod Taylor message dated "07 Sep 2002 15:30:50 -0400" Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:24:18 -0400 Message-ID: <12924.1031599458@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200209/27 X-Sequence-Number: 1479 Rod Taylor writes: > This note is currently in the 'Dependency Tracking (2.8)' section: > Note: According to the SQL standard, specifying either RESTRICT or > CASCADE is required. No database system actually implements it that way, > but the defaults might be different. The note is perhaps not very well worded. No one actually requires you to say RESTRICT or CASCADE, but there are some systems where the default assumption is CASCADE. I think everyone here agrees that that's a ridiculously dangerous default, so it's quite unlikely that PG's behavior would ever vary from what it is now. > If the defaults are different, perhaps the documentation should show > it's examples using RESTRICT or CASCADE explicitly? No, that's just pointless pedantry. regards, tom lane