Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 2:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm reasoning by analogy to array types, which are automatically
>> created and automatically updated to keep the same ownership
>> etc. properties as their base type. To the extent that multirange
>> types don't act exactly like that, I say it's a bug/oversight in the
>> multirange patch. So I think this is a backend bug, not a pg_dump
>> bug.
> Well, I guess maybe I'm just clueless. I thought that the range and
> multirange were two essentially independent objects being created by
> the same command. But I haven't studied the implementation so maybe
> I'm completely wrong.
They're by no means independent. What would it mean to have a
multirange without the underlying range type? Also, we already
treat the multirange as dependent for some things:
d=# create type varbitrange as range (subtype = varbit);
CREATE TYPE
d=# \dT
List of data types
Schema | Name | Description
--------+------------------+-------------
public | varbitmultirange |
public | varbitrange |
(2 rows)
d=# drop type varbitmultirange;
ERROR: cannot drop type varbitmultirange because type varbitrange requires it
HINT: You can drop type varbitrange instead.
d=# drop type varbitrange restrict;
DROP TYPE
d=# \dT
List of data types
Schema | Name | Description
--------+------+-------------
(0 rows)
So I think we're looking at a half-baked dependency design,
not two independent objects.
regards, tom lane
