On 2013-06-01 11:07:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes: > > On 05/31/2013 08:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Changing SQL syntax in the back-branches isn't normally something > >> we do, but I confess I don't see any real reason not to do it in > >> this case. > > > That was part of my hesitation, but I don't see any better way to fix > > existing installations and this is pretty well self-contained. Any > > other opinions out there? > > I don't like this approach much. > > 1. It does nothing to fix the issue in *existing* databases, which > won't have pg_depend entries like this.
Well, you can now write an extension upgrade script that adds the missing dependencies. To me that sounds better than letting it fiddle with pg_depend. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
