Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> What's a "not-to-follow dependency"?
> In case of extensions the code follows dependencies to walk on all > objects. That seems pretty silly/broken. You should only be touching *direct* dependencies of the extension, IMO. If there's something that's missed by that algorithm, the way to fix it is to add more direct dependencies at extension creation time; not to start a tree walk that is pretty nearly guaranteed to land on things that don't belong to the extension. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers