Re: Extension tracking temp table and causing update failure

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Instead, I'm tempted to propose that dependency.c explicitly allow drops
> of objects that belong to the current extension, when an extension is
> being created or updated.  (That is, if we come across a dependency
> reference to the active extension, we just ignore it.  A quick look
> suggests that this would require only a very small patch.)  That would
> prevent the entire class of problems.
>
> It would also have the effect that explicit DROPs of member objects in
> extension scripts could be done without an explicit ALTER EXTENSION DROP
> first.  I think we'd originally decided that requiring the ALTER was a
> good safety feature, but is it really more than nanny-ism?  The intent
> of a DROP command seems pretty clear.
>
> Thoughts?

I know you were more looking for Dimitri's answer to this, but I like the idea.