Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> If we go with a new deptype, I was thinking of using 'm' (macro
>> DEPENDENCY_MEMBER) but am not set on that. Have we been using any
>> particular term to refer to the objects that belong to an extension?
> Do you really think the new dependency type has to be re-usable easily
> in the future? DEPENDENCY_EXTENSION ('e') would look fine by me.
Hmm ... Haas suggested that too, but to me it seems confusing: which way
does such a dependency point? But if others don't find it so, I'm
willing to go with the majority.
regards, tom lane
