"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes:
+ A function that's marked as dependent on an extension is dropped when the
+ extension is dropped, even if cascade is not specified.
+ dependency checking in restrict mode <xref linkend="sql-dropextension"/>.
+ A function can depend upon multiple extensions, and will be dropped when
+ any one of those extensions is dropped.
Third line here seems like a copy/paste mistake? Also I'd tend
to mark up the keyword as <literal>CASCADE</literal>.
+ This form marks the procedure as dependent on the extension, or no longer
+ dependent on that extension if <literal>NO</literal> is specified.
The/that inconsistency ... choose one. Or actually, the "an ... the"
combination you used elsewhere doesn't grate on the ear either.
+ For each extension, refuse to drop anything if any objects (other than
the
+ extensions listed) depend on it. However, its own member objects, and
routines
+ that are explicitly dependent on this extension, are skipped.
+ This is the default.
"skipped" seems like a horrible choice of word; it could easily be read as
"they don't get dropped". I am not convinced that mentioning the member
objects here is an improvement either. In the first sentence you are
treating each extension as a monolithic object; why not in the second?
regards, tom lane
