Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()

On 2023-Jun-29, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

> I can hit the above error with the attached test case. That seems wrong,
> although I don't know if it means that the check is wrong or it exposed a
> long-standing bug.

> +CREATE SCHEMA test_func_dep1;
> +CREATE SCHEMA test_func_dep2;
> +CREATE EXTENSION test_ext_req_schema1 SCHEMA test_func_dep1;
> +ALTER FUNCTION test_func_dep1.dep_req1() SET SCHEMA test_func_dep2;
> +
> +ALTER EXTENSION test_ext_req_schema1 SET SCHEMA test_func_dep2;
> +
> +DROP EXTENSION test_ext_req_schema1 CASCADE;

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.

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
“Cuando no hay humildad las personas se degradan” (A. Christie)