On 02/04/2011 02:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The extensions patch currently records that an object is part of an
> extension by making a pg_depend entry with deptype 'i' (INTERNAL).
> While that has the behavior we want, I wonder whether it wouldn't
> be smarter in the long run to invent a new deptype for this purpose.
> We do not want people confusing module membership with actual internal
> dependencies, particularly not if kluges like pg_extension_flag_dump
> are going to be around. (I'm currently feeling that that function
> isn't going to make it into the committed patch, but sooner or later
> there are likely to be similar operations.)
>
> The main objection I can see to a new deptype is that it might confuse
> client-side code that examines pg_depend. But adding all these internal
> dependencies that don't mean quite what other internal dependencies do
> would likely confuse such code in more subtle ways anyhow.
+1. I don't think we've ever promised not to invent new deptypes, nor
should we.
cheers
andrew
