Re: doc: Clarify Routines and Extension Membership

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: doc: Clarify Routines and Extension Membership
Date: 2022-07-06 00:12:09
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:

+ A function that's marked as dependent on an extension is dropped when the
+ extension is dropped, even if cascade is not specified.
+ dependency checking in restrict mode <xref linkend="sql-dropextension"/>.
+ A function can depend upon multiple extensions, and will be dropped when
+ any one of those extensions is dropped.

Third line here seems like a copy/paste mistake? Also I'd tend
to mark up the keyword as <literal>CASCADE</literal>.

+ This form marks the procedure as dependent on the extension, or no longer
+ dependent on that extension if <literal>NO</literal> is specified.

The/that inconsistency ... choose one. Or actually, the "an ... the"
combination you used elsewhere doesn't grate on the ear either.

+ For each extension, refuse to drop anything if any objects (other than the
+ extensions listed) depend on it. However, its own member objects, and routines
+ that are explicitly dependent on this extension, are skipped.
+ This is the default.

"skipped" seems like a horrible choice of word; it could easily be read as
"they don't get dropped". I am not convinced that mentioning the member
objects here is an improvement either. In the first sentence you are
treating each extension as a monolithic object; why not in the second?

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-07-06 00:20:15 Re: EINTR in ftruncate()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-07-06 00:02:33 Re: Doc about how to set max_wal_senders when setting minimal wal_level