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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()
Date: 2023-07-05 05:10:42
Message-ID: ZKT7UgynWcrvq+SQ@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:40:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I don't see what we would gain by putting restrictions regarding
which schema an object is located in, depending on which schema an
extension uses.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-07-05 05:22:33 Re: Clean up command argument assembly
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2023-07-05 05:04:46 Re: logicalrep_message_type throws an error