> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 3:07 PM
> To: Regina Obe <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us>
> Cc: 'Gregory Stark (as CFM)' <stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com>; 'Sandro Santilli'
> <strk(at)kbt(dot)io>; pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org; 'Regina Obe'
> <r(at)pcorp(dot)us>
> Subject: Re: Ability to reference other extensions by schema in extension
> scripts
>
> "Regina Obe" <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us> writes:
> > [ 0005-Allow-use-of-extschema-reqextname-to-reference.patch ]
>
> I took a look at this. I'm on board with the feature design, but not so
much
> with this undocumented restriction you added to ALTER EXTENSION SET
> SCHEMA:
>
> + /* If an extension requires this extension
> + * do not allow relocation */
> + if (pg_depend->deptype == DEPENDENCY_NORMAL &&
> pg_depend->classid == ExtensionRelationId){
> + dep.classId = pg_depend->classid;
> + dep.objectId = pg_depend->objid;
> + dep.objectSubId = pg_depend->objsubid;
> + ereport(ERROR,
> +
> (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
> + errmsg("cannot SET SCHEMA of
> extension %s because other extensions require it",
> + NameStr(extForm-
> >extname)),
> + errdetail("%s requires extension
%s",
> +
> getObjectDescription(&dep, false),
> +NameStr(extForm->extname))));
>
> That seems quite disastrous for usability, and it's making an assumption
> unsupported by any evidence: that it will be a majority use-case for
> dependent extensions to have used @extschema:myextension@ in a way that
> would be broken by ALTER EXTENSION SET SCHEMA.
>
> I think we should just drop this. It might be worth putting in some
> documentation notes about the hazard, instead.
>
> If you want to work harder, perhaps a reasonable way to deal with the
issue
> would be to allow dependent extensions to declare that they don't want
your
> extension relocated. But I do not think it's okay to make that the
default
> behavior, much less the only behavior.
> And really, since we've gotten along without it so far, I'm not sure that
it's
> necessary to have it.
>
> Another thing that's bothering me a bit is the use of
get_required_extension
> in execute_extension_script. That does way more than you really need, and
> passing a bunch of bogus parameter values to it makes me uncomfortable.
> The callers already have the required extensions' OIDs at hand; it'd be
better
> to add that list to execute_extension_script's API instead of redoing the
> lookups.
>
> regards, tom lane