Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The underlying issue here is whether objects dependent on an extension >> member should have direct dependencies on the extension too, and if not, >> how do we prevent that? The recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension calls >> don't have enough information to know what to do, I think.
> After looking at this code, it seems that we've generally made that > the caller's problem - e.g. in heap_create_with_catalog(), we skip > recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension() if we're dealing with a composite > type. So I think the fix here is just to move the > recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension() call in pg_type.c inside the > if-block that precedes it, as in the attached patch. Hmm. I'm afraid that's going to break something, because I had had it like that originally and changed it in commit 988cccc620dd8c16d77f88ede167b22056176324. However, I'm not quite sure *what* it will break, because it seems like in general extension dependencies ought to act pretty nearly like owner dependencies. In a quick look, this seems to be the only place where we're doing it differently (without a clear reason) for recordDependencyOnOwner and recordDependencyOnCurrentExtension. Let me poke at it a bit more. The proposed patch is a bit short on comment fixes, anyway. 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