Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
>> 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.
Well the behavior we want is the same as the DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL one, in
about all cases (e.g. DROP SCHEMA CASCADE). So I think it'd be easier
to stick with doing it the same. And then the need for specializing the
dependency kind name just raises too…
My 2¢ anyway,
--
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
