From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
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
In-reply-to: <20200311141412.GA20749@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20200311141412.GA20749@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:14:12 -0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3925.1583937053.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:30:53 -0400
Message-ID: <3926.1583937053@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I'm still not sure whether to apply 0003 (+ your tab-completion patch,
> 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.

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.

			regards, tom lane