>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Lane

>The correct fix is CommandCounterIncrement() in the DROP USER loop,
>so that later iterations can see the changes made by prior iterations.
>
>			regards, tom lane

Since postgre now suppport referential integrity and cascading deletes,
wouldn't it make more sense to use that code to manage the relationship
between pg_user and pg_group (and probably a wealth of other system tables),
rather then having to write specific code to manage every relationship
between system tables, or are those types of constraints just not applicable
to system tables?

Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:25:08 -0500
Matthew <matt@ctlno.com>
RE: Postgre7.0.2 drop user bug 
Matthew <matt@ctlno.com> writes:
>> The correct fix is CommandCounterIncrement() in the DROP USER loop,
>> so that later iterations can see the changes made by prior iterations.

> Since postgre now suppport referential integrity and cascading deletes,
> wouldn't it make more sense to use that code to manage the relationship
> between pg_user and pg_group (and probably a wealth of other system tables),

Dunno if it's worth the trouble to change.  Certainly this particular
bug would still be a bug, whether the cascaded deletion is done "by hand"
or not. 

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:33:44 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Postgre7.0.2 drop user bug 