On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 08/27/2016 12:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> =?UTF-8?B?TWFydMOtbiBNYXJxdcOpcw==?= <mar...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> Looking at this issue today, I found that we are not setting a
>>> dependency for an index created inside an extension.
>> Surely the index has a dependency on a table, which depends on the
>> extension?
>> If you mean that you want an extension to create an index on a table
>> that doesn't belong to it, but it's assuming pre-exists, I think
>> that's just stupid and we need not support it.
> I don't see why that would be stupid (and I'm not sure it's up to us to just
> decide it's stupid).

Like Tomas, I am not really getting this opposition..

> I see the current behavior is documented, and I do understand why global
> objects can't be part of the extension, but for indexes it seems to violate
> POLA a bit.
> Is there a reason why we don't want the extension/index dependencies?

I think that we could do a better effort for indexes at least, in the
same way as we do for sequences as both are referenced in pg_class. I
don't know the effort to get that done for < 9.6, but if we can do it
at least for 9.6 and 10, which is where pg_dump is a bit smarter in
the way it deals with dependencies, we should do it.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to