| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: creating extension including dependencies |
| Date: | 2015-07-21 14:20:12 |
| Message-ID: | 29128.1437488412@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> ... My main question is if we are
> ok with SCHEMA having different behavior with CASCADE vs without
> CASCADE. I went originally with "no" and added the DEFAULT flag to
> SCHEMA. If the answer is "yes" then we don't need the flag (in that case
> CASCADE acts as the flag).
Yeah, I was coming around to that position as well. Insisting that
SCHEMA throw an error if the extension isn't relocatable makes sense
as long as only one extension is being considered, but once you say
CASCADE it seems like mostly a usability fail. I think it's probably
OK if with CASCADE, SCHEMA is just "use if needed else ignore".
Obviously we've gotta document all this properly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-07-21 14:24:01 | Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-07-21 14:14:46 | Re: creating extension including dependencies |