Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> If we go with a new deptype, I was thinking of using 'm' (macro
>> DEPENDENCY_MEMBER) but am not set on that. Have we been using any
>> particular term to refer to the objects that belong to an extension?
> Do you really think the new dependency type has to be re-usable easily
> in the future? DEPENDENCY_EXTENSION ('e') would look fine by me.
Hmm ... Haas suggested that too, but to me it seems confusing: which way
does such a dependency point? But if others don't find it so, I'm
willing to go with the majority.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
