Le 26/11/2016 à 19:36, Tom Lane a écrit :
> phb07 <phb07@apra.asso.fr> writes:
>> Le 26/11/2016 à 01:59, Tom Lane a écrit :
>>> Don't see why that's a "workaround". You added the extension membership
>>> for the sequence explicitly, why wouldn't you expect to need to drop it
>>> explicitly? Seems to me the system is behaving properly.
>> Because depending on the way a table has been included in the extension
>> (either directly created inside the extension or first created outside
>> and then linked to the extension) the procedure to drop it some versions
>> later would be different.
> Well, no it wouldn't be, but nonetheless on closer study I think you're
> right that this is a bug. There is code in there that intends to make it
> unnecessary to issue "ALTER EXTENSION DROP member" when an extension
> update script drops a member object; it should be sufficient to just
> drop the object. It was failing to fire in this case because the drop
> was indirect, but it should work anyway.
>
> I've applied a patch for that. Thanks for the report!
Thank You very much, Tom.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
