Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > The case where this would actually happen is where extension A creates > some operator, and mentions some other operator as its commutator or > negator, but never gets around to defining the other operator. Then > extension B comes along and tries to fill in the other operator > definition. Do we want to let that happen, or do we want to throw an > error on the grounds that this sort of interconnection of two extensions > was almost certainly not intended? (Note that I rather doubt that > dropping either extension alone, afterwards, would clean up nicely, > since we have no code that would remove the oprcom/oprnegate linkage.)
I don't think we should let that happen. We currently support self contained extensions and I don't see opening the door this way as a feature. > On the whole I'm starting to think that throwing an error is the best > thing. We could always relax that later, but going the other way might > be problematic. +1 Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
