On 2013-06-01 11:31:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2013-06-01 11:07:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 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. > > Per my point #2, that would be the wrong solution, quite aside from the > wrongness of dumping the fixup burden on the extension author. For one > thing, the extension author has no idea whether his script is being > loaded into a database that has this patch. If it doesn't, adding a > command like this would cause the script to fail outright. If it does, > then the command is unnecessary, since the patch also includes a code > change that adds the dependency.
> But in any case, making rules act differently from other table > properties for this purpose seems seriously wrong. What's your proposal to fix this situation then? 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
