Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes:
>> I think we shouldn't change the content of pg_depend lightly here, and
> So here's a patch following that idea.
I've got to say that I think this is fundamentally the wrong approach:
rather than fixing the generic problem of ALTER EXTENSION not coping
with multiple dependency paths to the same object, it hacks the specific
case of owned sequences, and what's more it does that by assuming that
every owned sequence *will* have a dependency on the extension. That's
not a safe assumption.
Still, this might be the best approach for the back branches, given that
we do not know of any existing multiple-dependency scenarios other than
the owned-sequence case. A real fix is looking mighty invasive.
> Even for TIP I don't want us to change how pg_depend tracking is done,
Agreed. Quite aside from backwards-compatibility concerns, I think that
trying to avoid multiple dependency paths is doomed to failure.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
