| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e' |
| Date: | 2016-03-21 19:43:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYZOnBw-3FE+yMAvgBM9mHCfO-krKFQ9n4D6dSvzmZDGw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> At 2016-03-21 13:04:33 +0300, a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure why we want to make new dependency type by ALTER FUNCTION
>> command, not ALTER EXTENSION?
>
> It's a matter of semantics. It means something very different than what
> an 'e' dependency means. The extension doesn't own the function (and so
> pg_dump shouldn't ignore it), but the function depends on the extension
> (and so dropping the extension should drop it).
Yeah, I think this is definitely an ALTER FUNCTION kind of thing, not
an ALTER EXTENSION kind of thing.
I also think we should allow a function to depend on multiple
extensions, as Alvaro mentions downthread.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-21 19:45:22 | Re: pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-21 19:42:22 | Re: pgbench - allow backslash-continuations in custom scripts |