Re: Add function dependencies

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> That seems pretty silly/broken. You should only be touching *direct*
> dependencies of the extension, IMO. If there's something that's missed
> by that algorithm, the way to fix it is to add more direct dependencies
> at extension creation time; not to start a tree walk that is pretty
> nearly guaranteed to land on things that don't belong to the extension.

Well the current patch is walking the tree because that's what I need
for listing extension's objects (in \dx ext), e.g. I want to follow from
an opclass to its functions in that context.

Now I reused this walker for ALTER EXTENSION SET SCHEMA, where it could
well be that I don't need walking down the dependency tree. Will think
about it and try it (very localised change). Thanks for comments.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support