On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:27 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > As I was working on that lately, I came to the conclusion that we should > get *this* patch done first.
Cool. Let's aim to get this into 13! > > * Some have expressed doubt that pg_depend is the right place for > > this; let's see if any counter-proposals appear. > > The only alternative is to create a new catalog that contains exactly > the same columns as pg_depend (minus deptype) plus the version. That > would work but it would just create a lot of code duplication, I think. Agreed. > One thing I've been thinking about is whether this object-version > concept could extend to other object types. For example, if someone > changes the binary layout of a type, they could change the version of > the type, and this catalog could track the type version in the column -> > type dependency. Obviously, a lot more work would have to be done to > make this work, but I think the concept of this catalog is sound. Interesting idea. Sounds like it requires version checks that actually stop you from using the dependent object, instead of emitting a few meek warnings.