| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add function dependencies |
| Date: | 2011-01-13 00:44:12 |
| Message-ID: | 223.1294879452@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> What's a "not-to-follow dependency"?
> In case of extensions the code follows dependencies to walk on all
> objects.
That seems pretty silly/broken. You should only be touching *direct*
dependencies of the extension, IMO. If there's something that's missed
by that algorithm, the way to fix it is to add more direct dependencies
at extension creation time; not to start a tree walk that is pretty
nearly guaranteed to land on things that don't belong to the extension.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-01-13 00:46:31 | Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-13 00:35:20 | Re: Fixing GIN for empty/null/full-scan cases |