Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > That seems pretty silly/broken. You should only be touching *direct* > dependencies of the extension, IMO. If there's something that's missed > by that algorithm, the way to fix it is to add more direct dependencies > at extension creation time; not to start a tree walk that is pretty > nearly guaranteed to land on things that don't belong to the extension.
Well the current patch is walking the tree because that's what I need for listing extension's objects (in \dx ext), e.g. I want to follow from an opclass to its functions in that context. Now I reused this walker for ALTER EXTENSION SET SCHEMA, where it could well be that I don't need walking down the dependency tree. Will think about it and try it (very localised change). Thanks for comments. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
