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

On 2023-Jul-10, Tom Lane wrote:

> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 10:09:20AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I also don't think pg_dump will dump the changed schema, which means a
> >> dump/restore leads to a different schema - IMO something to avoid.
>
> > Yes, you're right here. The function dumped is restored in the same
> > schema as the extension.
>
> Actually, I think the given example demonstrates pilot error rather
> than a bug.

Well, if this is pilot error, why don't we throw an error ourselves?

> The user has altered properties of an extension member
> object locally within the database, but has not changed the extension's
> installation script to match.

If I were developing an extension and decided, down the line, to have
some objects in another schema, I would certainly increment the
extension's version number and have a new script to move the object. I
would never expect the user to do an ALTER directly (and it makes no
sense for me as an extension developer to do it manually, either.)

--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
“Cuando no hay humildad las personas se degradan” (A. Christie)