At 2016-01-16 12:18:53 -0500, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: > > This seems like one manifestation of the more general problem that we > don't have any real idea what objects a function definition depends > on.
Yes. I'm proposing to address a part of that problem by allowing extension dependencies to be explicitly declared for functions and objects created either by a user or dynamically by the extension itself—things that need the extension to function, but aren't a part of it. Put that way, ALTER EXTENSION doesn't sound like the way to do it. Maybe ALTER FUNCTION … DEPENDS ON EXTENSION …? I don't particularly care how the dependency is recorded, it's the dependency type that's important. I'll post a patch along those lines in a bit, just so we have something concrete to discuss; meanwhile, suggestions for another syntax to record the dependency are welcome. -- Abhijit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
