Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()
Date
Msg-id ZKT7UgynWcrvq+SQ@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:40:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
>> Hmm, shouldn't we disallow moving the function to another schema, if the
>> function's schema was originally determined at extension creation time?
>> I'm not sure we really want to allow moving objects of an extension to a
>> different schema.
>
> Why not?  I do not believe that an extension's objects are required
> to all be in the same schema.

Yes, I don't see what we would gain by putting restrictions regarding
which schema an object is located in, depending on which schema an
extension uses.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: logicalrep_message_type throws an error
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Clean up command argument assembly