At 2016-03-19 17:46:25 -0300, alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: > > I don't think the first patch is acceptable standalone -- we need both > things together.
OK. > But in reality, pg_depend handling is mixed up with other changes all > over the place. Yes, I noticed that. :-/ > Anyway I think this should be something along the lines of > ALTER FUNCTION foo() DEPENDS ON EXTENSION bar; OK. That's reasonable. > ALTER FUNCTION foo() OWNED BY EXTENSION bar; If the function is really OWNED BY EXTENSION, then the right way to declare it would seem to be ALTER EXTENSION … ADD FUNCTION. I prefer DEPENDS ON EXTENSION for this reason, there's no ambiguity about what we're declaring. > Another argument to focus only on extensions is that pg_dump knows > specifically about extensions for supressing objects to dump, and we > don't have any other object type doing the same kind of thing; so > perhaps extensions-only is fine. That's the argument that motivates this particular patch. I think if we have a DEPENDS ON EXTENSION framework, it (a) addresses the immediate need, and (b) gives us a straightforward way to add DEPENDS ON <x> in future when we find some need for it. I'll write up a patch for this. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Abhijit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
