| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Use a separate pg_depend.deptype for extension membership? |
| Date: | 2011-02-04 19:33:05 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimUFPwmRzsMu=p4EXjDZAF8P8y=KTkUxGrsNytO@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The extensions patch currently records that an object is part of an
> extension by making a pg_depend entry with deptype 'i' (INTERNAL).
> While that has the behavior we want, I wonder whether it wouldn't
> be smarter in the long run to invent a new deptype for this purpose.
+1.
> If we go with a new deptype, I was thinking of using 'm' (macro
> DEPENDENCY_MEMBER) but am not set on that. Have we been using any
> particular term to refer to the objects that belong to an extension?
DEPENDENCY_EXTENSION?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-02-04 19:38:28 | Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27 |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-02-04 19:25:47 | Re: Use a separate pg_depend.deptype for extension membership? |