Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Again, it's not really any different from the case where the dependent >> objects are "loose" rather than members of an extension.
> Well, the difference is that loose objects are just on my system, > whereas extensions are supposed to work on anybody's system. I'm not > clear that it's possible to write an extension that depends on a > relocatable extension in a sensible way. If it is, objection > withdrawn. I don't deny that there are risks here. But I think the value of being able to move an extension when it is safe outweighs the difficulty that sometimes it isn't safe. I think we can leave making it safer as a topic for future investigation. Dimitri did suggest treating an extension as nonrelocatable if there is any other extension installed that depends on it. But that seems like more of a kluge than a nice solution, primarily because it does nothing for the loose-object risks. I'd rather just document that moving an extension post-installation might break things, and leave it at that for now. 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