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:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:36 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Groff, Dana; Jan Wieck; Stephan Szabo; 
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should this require CASCADE? 
> 
> 
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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
> 

Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:43:18 -0400
"Groff, Dana" <Dana.Groff@filetek.com>
Re: Should this require CASCADE? 