On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Like ALTER THING SET SCHEMA, ALTER THING SET EXTENSION is implicitly >>> assuming that there can be only one owning extension for an object. > >> I would assume that we would enforce that constraint anyway. No? >> Otherwise when you drop one of the two extensions, what happens to the >> object? Seems necessary for sanity. > > Not sure --- what about nested extensions, for instance? Or you could > think about objects that are shared between two extensions, and go away > only if all those extensions are dropped. (RPM has exactly that > behavior for files owned by multiple packages, to take a handy example.) > > My point is that the current restriction to just one containing > extension seems to me to be an implementation restriction, rather than > something inherent in the concept of extensions. I have no intention of > trying to relax that restriction in the near future --- I'm just > pointing out that it could become an interesting thing to do.
OK. My point was that I think we should definitely *enforce* that restriction until we have a very clear vision of what it means to do anything else, so it sounds like we're basically in agreement. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
