Re: alter function/procedure depends on extension

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 6:16 PM Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:

>
> (4) The clue to the whole thing is the semantics of the LoV for
> "pg_depend. deptype" (see below) — but you all kept this a secret from me!
>

I didn't even think to look at the system catalogs for guidance in this
kind of thing. The catalogs are not what I consider end-user facing
documentation; I'd want the core documentation (SQL Command Reference and
exposition chapters for different features) to be sufficient for someone to
understand how these things work. Now, I would probably have been a bit
less certain of myself had I gone and looked at the catalogs early on.
Seeing the specification for DEPENDENCY_AUTO (a) would have reset my
internal consistency trigger.

> David wrote:
>
> This must be a typo: "depends on" and "is dependent upon" mean the same.
> I’m guessing that this was meant: « An extension neither depends on nor is
> *depended* upon by its members. » If so, then it’s wrong. Yes: an extension
> doesn’t depend on its members. This query (which runs without error) shows
> that an extension depends upon only the schema nominated by
> "create extension… with schema…".
>

> But no: the objects do depend upon the extension that creates them, as
> this query shows:
>
>
Yeah, I seem to have had a brain fade there.
David J.