| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |
| Date: | 2012-03-23 16:12:22 |
| Message-ID: | m2obrncn4p.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Why do features have OIDs? Is this for pg_depend entries? If so, would
> it work to have pg_depend entries point to extensions instead?
Yes, for pg_depend, no I don't know how to make that work with pointing
to the extensions directly, because the whole point here is to be able
to depend on a feature rather than the whole extension.
Use cases:
- depend on a feature f that appeared in version y of the extension
(bugfix, new capability)
- deprecate a feature: alter extension update removes a feature, you
want to know that the dependent extensions need processing (cascade
to remove them in the operation, or update them before hand, etc)
(still manual operation though)
I don't see how to handle those cases with a direct dependency on the
extension rather than one of its features.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-23 16:27:37 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add notion of a "transform function" that can simplify function |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2012-03-23 16:09:56 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add notion of a "transform function" that can simplify function |