Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > 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.
In general, agreed. > 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. That's what I was aiming at, best approach for the back branches. >> 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. For a “DIRTT” approach to the problems, I think Álvaro's work is in the right direction, and should be pursued without trying to address the back branches too. I don't remember now if his tracking attempt was also trying to change pg_depend entries, I think that was in two separate patches versions. DIRTT: Do It Right This Time Álvaro, do you want to be working on a master only version of the fix or do you want me to? Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine 06 63 07 10 78 http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
