Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Another extensions bug

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Another extensions bug
Date: 2011-08-24 07:48:28
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> On further reflection, it seems more in keeping with the coding
> elsewhere in this module to treat this as a distinct dependency type,
> instead of confusing it with a NORMAL dependency.  There's no actual
> functional difference at the moment, but more info is better than less.

Seems better indeed.  In my first implementation, we had no EXTENSION
kind of dependency and used only INTERNAL, which IIRC reads reverse than
the other ones.  Having to finally have EXTENSION and REVERSE kinds of
dependencies here is not that surprising.

> Hence, proposed patch attached (which also improves some of the related
> comments).

+1 on the idea, although I'm not in a position to further review or play
with the patch today.

Dimitri Fontaine     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Markus WannerDate: 2011-08-24 08:14:40
Subject: Re: cheaper snapshots redux
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-08-24 04:49:22
Subject: Re: Another extensions bug

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group