Re: BUG #14434: Drop a table with a serial in an extension

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: phb07 <phb07(at)apra(dot)asso(dot)fr>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #14434: Drop a table with a serial in an extension
Date: 2016-11-26 18:36:29
Message-ID: 14093.1480185389@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

phb07 <phb07(at)apra(dot)asso(dot)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!

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message jmhowitt 2016-11-27 09:32:51 BUG #14435: PGAdmin 4 will not see the server
Previous Message phb07 2016-11-26 08:10:11 Re: BUG #14434: Drop a table with a serial in an extension