Hi, On 2021-08-16 15:36:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > There's a policy question here, which is when does an operation on > a pre-existing object within an extension script cause the object > to be absorbed into the extension? You might naively say "never", > but that's not our historical behavior, and I think it'd clearly > be the wrong thing in some cases. For example, consider > > CREATE TYPE cube; -- make a shell type > -- do something that requires type cube to exist > CREATE EXTENSION cube; > > We don't want this to fail, because it might be necessary to do > things that way to get out of circular dependencies.
In what scenario would that be a good way to address a circular dependency? ISTM that whatever depends on $ext should be using shell types or such to avoid the circular dependency, then create $ext. Rather than creating shell types for object in $ext and then create $ext. > Another point that perhaps deserves discussion is whether it's > okay to change the signature of GenerateTypeDependencies in > stable branches (we need to fix this in v13 not only v14/HEAD). > I can't see a good reason for extensions to be calling that, > and codesearch.debian.net knows of no outside callers, so I'm > inclined to just change it. If anyone thinks that's too risky, > we could do something with a wrapper function in v13. Seems OK to not bother with a wrapper to me - I can't see a reason either. Greetings, Andres Freund
