Re: ALTER EXTENSION DROP FUNCTION not working ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sandro Santilli <strk(at)keybit(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER EXTENSION DROP FUNCTION not working ?
Date: 2016-02-09 15:27:25
Message-ID: 8379.1455031645@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sandro Santilli <strk(at)keybit(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:33:42AM +0100, Sandro Santilli wrote:
>> https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/3450#comment:23
>>
>> Basically I'm getting:
>> ERROR: cannot drop function pgis_twkb_accum_finalfn(internal) because other objects depend on it
>> DETAIL: extension postgis depends on function pgis_twkb_accum_finalfn(internal)

> Figured: the "pgis_twkb_accum_finalfn(internal)" function is not
> a _direct_ dependency of extension "postgis", but is needed for
> an aggregate which is still registered.

> So this is more an annoyance than a bug, being the non-clear error
> message about what's the direct dependent object that prevents
> the drop.

I believe this is an intentional design decision: if you try to drop
something that an extension member object depends on, we complain about
the extension, not about the member object. This is on the grounds
that a user of an extension likely doesn't know or care exactly what
all the extension members are, and would rather think of the extension
as a unit. Consider for example that if you'd said CASCADE, the command
would have led to dropping the whole extension; would you want each
member object of the extension to be called out explicitly as a drop
cascade target?

I agree that it's a bit unintuitive when you're the developer of the
extension, but I doubt we're going to revisit this choice.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2016-02-09 16:03:29 Re: Tracing down buildfarm "postmaster does not shut down" failures
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2016-02-09 14:58:15 Re: proposal: schema PL session variables