From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #6172: DROP EXTENSION error without CASCADE |
Date: | 2011-08-22 15:02:33 |
Message-ID: | m2r54debg6.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The case where this would actually happen is where extension A creates
> some operator, and mentions some other operator as its commutator or
> negator, but never gets around to defining the other operator. Then
> extension B comes along and tries to fill in the other operator
> definition. Do we want to let that happen, or do we want to throw an
> error on the grounds that this sort of interconnection of two extensions
> was almost certainly not intended? (Note that I rather doubt that
> dropping either extension alone, afterwards, would clean up nicely,
> since we have no code that would remove the oprcom/oprnegate linkage.)
I don't think we should let that happen. We currently support self
contained extensions and I don't see opening the door this way as a
feature.
> On the whole I'm starting to think that throwing an error is the best
> thing. We could always relax that later, but going the other way might
> be problematic.
+1
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-22 16:34:15 | Re: BUG #6165: documentation bug in plpgsql-declarations.html and plpgsql-statements.html (or plpgsql parser bug) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-22 14:39:00 | Re: BUG #6172: DROP EXTENSION error without CASCADE |