Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e' - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYZOnBw-3FE+yMAvgBM9mHCfO-krKFQ9n4D6dSvzmZDGw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'  (Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> At 2016-03-21 13:04:33 +0300, a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure why we want to make new dependency type by ALTER FUNCTION
>> command, not ALTER EXTENSION?
>
> It's a matter of semantics. It means something very different than what
> an 'e' dependency means. The extension doesn't own the function (and so
> pg_dump shouldn't ignore it), but the function depends on the extension
> (and so dropping the extension should drop it).

Yeah, I think this is definitely an ALTER FUNCTION kind of thing, not
an ALTER EXTENSION kind of thing.

I also think we should allow a function to depend on multiple
extensions, as Alvaro mentions downthread.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts