Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:38:37 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, Ahsan Hadi <ahsan.hadi@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: more ALTER .. DEPENDS ON EXTENSION fixes
Message-ID: <20200409183837.GA17769@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <3926.1583937053@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Mar-11, Tom Lane wrote:

> > thanks for it) to backbranches or just to master.  It seems legitimate
> > to see it as a feature addition, but OTOH the overall feature is not
> > complete without it ...
> 
> 0003 is the command addition to allow removing such a dependency,
> right?  Given the lack of field demand I see no reason to risk
> adding it to the back branches.

Yeah, okay.

I hereby request permission to push this patch past the feature freeze
date; it's a very small one that completes an existing feature (rather
than a complete new feature in itself), and it's not intrusive nor
likely to break anything.

> BTW, I did not like the syntax too much.  "NO DEPENDS ON EXTENSION"
> doesn't seem like good English.  "NOT DEPENDS ON EXTENSION" is hardly
> any better.  The real problem with both is that an ALTER action should
> be, well, an action.  A grammar stickler would say that it should be
> "ALTER thing DROP DEPENDENCY ON EXTENSION ext", but perhaps we could
> get away with "ALTER thing DROP DEPENDS ON EXTENSION ext" to avoid
> adding a new keyword.  By that logic the original command should have
> been "ALTER thing ADD DEPENDS ON EXTENSION ext", but I suppose it's
> too late for that.

I will be submitting a version with these changes shortly.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services