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

From: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'
Date: 2016-04-05 07:03:56
Message-ID: 20160405070356.GA21967@toroid.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

-- Abhijit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2016-04-05 07:18:19 Re: Combining Aggregates
Previous Message Tom Dunstan 2016-04-05 06:48:24 Re: Alter or rename enum value