Re: Add function dependencies

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Add function dependencies
Date: 2011-01-12 09:36:39
Message-ID: 87y66qxy3c.fsf@enterprise.technique.hi-media-techno.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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. We already have the problem that an extension depending on
another is not relocatable, because 'ALTER EXTENSION SET SCHEMA' would
walk to objects of another extension (the one it depends on). We said
inter-extension dependencies could wait until later, so what you do here
is to declare your extension has not relocatable.

Now, if there are some dependencies between objects that are not of the
same extension, we have the exact same problem. That's what I called a
"not-to-follow" dependency for lack of a better term.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2011-01-12 09:39:05 Re: Streaming base backups
Previous Message marcin mank 2011-01-12 09:26:05 Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups