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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()
Date: 2023-07-04 18:40:04
Message-ID: 879484.1688496004@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> 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.

Why not? I do not believe that an extension's objects are required
to all be in the same schema.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitry Dolgov 2023-07-04 19:02:56 Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-07-04 18:37:58 Re: suppressing useless wakeups in logical/worker.c