Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2016-04-05 12:33:56 +0530, a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: > > > > Álvaro: I did document and test the extra types you added, but now > > that I think about it a bit more, it's hard to argue that it's useful > > to have a table, for example, depend on an extension. There's really > > nothing about a table that "doesn't work without" an extension. > > I think it makes sense to implement this for triggers and functions. It > may also be useful for indexes and materialised views, which can refer > to functions in an extension (and in future, sequences as well). > > It's certainly good to know the grammar would work if we wanted to add > other object types in future, but I think we should leave it at that.
Yes, agreed. What I implemented weren't cases that were supposed to be useful to users, only those for which I thought it was good to test bison with. Sorry I wasn't clear about this. Feel free the strip out (some of?) them, if they aren't useful. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
