Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'

At 2016-01-16 12:18:53 -0500, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
> This seems like one manifestation of the more general problem that we
> don't have any real idea what objects a function definition depends
> on.

Yes.

I'm proposing to address a part of that problem by allowing extension
dependencies to be explicitly declared for functions and objects created
either by a user or dynamically by the extension itself—things that need
the extension to function, but aren't a part of it.

Put that way, ALTER EXTENSION doesn't sound like the way to do it. Maybe
ALTER FUNCTION … DEPENDS ON EXTENSION …? I don't particularly care how
the dependency is recorded, it's the dependency type that's important.

I'll post a patch along those lines in a bit, just so we have something
concrete to discuss; meanwhile, suggestions for another syntax to record
the dependency are welcome.

-- Abhijit