On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 03:40:24PM -0500, Regina Obe wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 05:19:39AM -0500, Regina Obe wrote: > > > > I was thinking: how about using the "refobjsubid" to encode the "level" of > > dependency on an extension ? Right now "refobjsubid" is always 0 when the > > referenced object is an extension. > > Could we consider subid=1 to mean the dependency is not only on the > > extension but ALSO on it's schema location ? > > I like that idea. It's only been ever used for tables I think, but I don't > see why it wouldn't apply in this case as the concept is kinda the same. > Only concern if other parts rely on this being 0.
This has to be verified, yes. But it feels to me like "must be 0" was mostly to _allow_ for future extensions like the proposed one. > The other question, should this just update the existing DEPENDENCY_NORMAL > extension or add a new DEPENDENCY_NORMAL between the extensions with > subid=1? I'd use the existing record. --strk; Libre GIS consultant/developer https://strk.kbt.io/services.html
