Tom Lane <[email protected]> writes: > Dimitri Fontaine <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
