Tom Lane writes:
> Dimitri Fontaine 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?
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> If we go with a new deptype, I was thinking of using 'm' (macro
>> DEPENDENCY_MEMBER) but am not set on that. Have we been using any
>> particular term to refer to the objects that belong to an extension?
> Do you really think the new dependency ty
Tom Lane writes:
> The extensions patch currently records that an object is part of an
> extension by making a pg_depend entry with deptype 'i' (INTERNAL).
> While that has the behavior we want, I wonder whether it wouldn't
> be smarter in the long run to invent a new deptype for this purpose.
I
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The extensions patch currently records that an object is part of an
> extension by making a pg_depend entry with deptype 'i' (INTERNAL).
> While that has the behavior we want, I wonder whether it wouldn't
> be smarter in the long run to invent a ne
On 02/04/2011 02:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
The extensions patch currently records that an object is part of an
extension by making a pg_depend entry with deptype 'i' (INTERNAL).
While that has the behavior we want, I wonder whether it wouldn't
be smarter in the long run to invent a new deptype for
The extensions patch currently records that an object is part of an
extension by making a pg_depend entry with deptype 'i' (INTERNAL).
While that has the behavior we want, I wonder whether it wouldn't
be smarter in the long run to invent a new deptype for this purpose.
We do not want people confusi
