Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:08:19 +0530
From: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite
 'e'
Message-ID: <20160118053819.GA18576@toroid.org>
References: 
 <CAKFQuwYH=Z2EfahWez+qb=RCwCSoOtV7s75To+ysaKpeMwQkpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <18108.1452869354@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20160115170826.GA28307@toroid.org>
 <20160116144818.GA17401@toroid.org>
 <58C7A345-193B-4813-A7AA-4B78358313D6@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <58C7A345-193B-4813-A7AA-4B78358313D6@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

At 2016-01-16 12:18:53 -0500, robertmhaas@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This seems like one manifestation of the more general problem that we
> don't have any real idea what objects a function definition depends
> on.

Yes.

I'm proposing to address a part of that problem by allowing extension
dependencies to be explicitly declared for functions and objects created
either by a user or dynamically by the extension itself—things that need
the extension to function, but aren't a part of it.

Put that way, ALTER EXTENSION doesn't sound like the way to do it. Maybe
ALTER FUNCTION … DEPENDS ON EXTENSION …? I don't particularly care how
the dependency is recorded, it's the dependency type that's important.

I'll post a patch along those lines in a bit, just so we have something
concrete to discuss; meanwhile, suggestions for another syntax to record
the dependency are welcome.

-- Abhijit


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