Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'

At 2016-03-19 17:46:25 -0300, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com wrote:
>
> I don't think the first patch is acceptable standalone -- we need both
> things together.

OK.

> But in reality, pg_depend handling is mixed up with other changes all
> over the place.

Yes, I noticed that. :-/

> Anyway I think this should be something along the lines of
> ALTER FUNCTION foo() DEPENDS ON EXTENSION bar;

OK. That's reasonable.

> ALTER FUNCTION foo() OWNED BY EXTENSION bar;

If the function is really OWNED BY EXTENSION, then the right way to
declare it would seem to be ALTER EXTENSION … ADD FUNCTION. I prefer
DEPENDS ON EXTENSION for this reason, there's no ambiguity about what
we're declaring.

> Another argument to focus only on extensions is that pg_dump knows
> specifically about extensions for supressing objects to dump, and we
> don't have any other object type doing the same kind of thing; so
> perhaps extensions-only is fine.

That's the argument that motivates this particular patch. I think if we
have a DEPENDS ON EXTENSION framework, it (a) addresses the immediate
need, and (b) gives us a straightforward way to add DEPENDS ON <x> in
future when we find some need for it.

I'll write up a patch for this. Thanks for the suggestions.

-- Abhijit