Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> What's a "not-to-follow dependency"?
> In case of extensions the code follows dependencies to walk on all
> objects.
That seems pretty silly/broken. You should only be touching *direct*
dependencies of the extension, IMO. If there's something that's missed
by that algorithm, the way to fix it is to add more direct dependencies
at extension creation time; not to start a tree walk that is pretty
nearly guaranteed to land on things that don't belong to the extension.
regards, tom lane
