On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Instead, I'm tempted to propose that dependency.c explicitly allow drops > of objects that belong to the current extension, when an extension is > being created or updated. (That is, if we come across a dependency > reference to the active extension, we just ignore it. A quick look > suggests that this would require only a very small patch.) That would > prevent the entire class of problems. > > It would also have the effect that explicit DROPs of member objects in > extension scripts could be done without an explicit ALTER EXTENSION DROP > first. I think we'd originally decided that requiring the ALTER was a > good safety feature, but is it really more than nanny-ism? The intent > of a DROP command seems pretty clear. > > Thoughts?
I know you were more looking for Dimitri's answer to this, but I like the idea. -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
