Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
Subject: Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27
Date: 2011-01-26 21:03:07
Message-ID: m2fwsfqsxg.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Oh: then you're doing it wrong. If you want to remember that WITH
> SCHEMA was specified, you need to explicitly store that as another
> column in pg_extension. You should not be depending on the dependency
> mechanism to remember that for you, any more than we'd use pg_depend to
> remember a table's relnamespace. The dependency mechanism is there
> to figure out the consequences of a DROP command, it's not there to
> remember arbitrary facts. (And yes, I know that we've cheated on that
> principle a few times before; but you can't do it here.)

The thinking is that we need to have the dependency registered too, so
that DROP SCHEMA will cascade to the extension. So while at it, I also
used the dependency for tracking the schema.

Even if I get to use a column to track the schema, I will have to
maintain registering the dependency. Should I do that?

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-01-26 21:04:33 .gitignore patch for coverage builds
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-01-26 21:02:53 Re: ALTER TYPE 3: add facility to identify further no-work cases