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