On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 8:55 AM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 8:49 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> "David G. Johnston" writes:
>> > - A function that's marked as dependent on an extension is
>> automatically
>> > - dropped when the extension i
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 8:49 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > - A function that's marked as dependent on an extension is
> automatically
> > - dropped when the extension is dropped.
> > + A function that's marked as dependent on an extension is skipped
> during
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> - A function that's marked as dependent on an extension is automatically
> - dropped when the extension is dropped.
> + A function that's marked as dependent on an extension is skipped during
> + dependency checking in restrict mode linkend="sql-d
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:32 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:54 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> "David G. Johnston" writes:
>> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> There is no bug here; it's operating as designed and documented.
>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 6:16 PM Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
>
> (4) The clue to the whole thing is the semantics of the LoV for
> "pg_depend. deptype" (see below) — but you all kept this a secret from me!
>
I didn't even think to look at the system catalogs for guidance in this
kind of thing. The cat
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It's not a member though; there's a different syntax for that (ALTER
> EXTENSION name ADD member_object). The differences are a bit subtle, but for
> example making the function an extension member would change how pg_dump
> treats it.
I read, and re-re
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:54 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> There is no bug here; it's operating as designed and documented.
> >> Maybe the docs need some refinement.
>
> > We should just say that ALTER FUNCTION ALTER DE
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> There is no bug here; it's operating as designed and documented.
>> Maybe the docs need some refinement.
> We should just say that ALTER FUNCTION ALTER DEPENDS ON makes the target
> function/procedure a (transient?)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 7:30 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> "David G. Johnston" writes:
>> > Maybe, but the behavior does exist but is bugged in its current state.
>> > Whether it is advisable for users to use this
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > Maybe, but the behavior does exist but is bugged in its current state.
> > Whether it is advisable for users to use this feature is immaterial, the
> > bug needs to be fixed so that is works as documented for those
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> Maybe, but the behavior does exist but is bugged in its current state.
> Whether it is advisable for users to use this feature is immaterial, the
> bug needs to be fixed so that is works as documented for those that choose
> to do so.
There is no bug here; it's opera
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 5:15 PM Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
>
> So I don't know what to believe.
>
Well, since the documentation supports what I was saying but the
implementation effectively supports what Adrian was saying this confusion
isn't surprising. The status quo is inconsistent and needs to
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> …and the documentation for ALTER FUNCTION should read "…as dependent on an
>> extension may be dropped when the extension is dropped".
>
> Nevermind this - if the extension is dropped the function will go away. Bu
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:15 AM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and the documentation for ALTER FUNCTION should read "...as dependent on
> an extension may be dropped when the extension is dropped".
>
Nevermind this - if the extension is dropped the function will go awa
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:04 AM Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 2/17/22 08:52, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> > **Briefly**
> >
>
> > *qu. 2.* Why does "drop extension restrict" quietly succeed—having the
> > effect of cascade-dropping any subprogram that you've altered to depend
> > on the extension in ques
On 2022-Feb-17, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> qu. 1. What is the use-case for "alter function/procedure depends on
> extension"?
Suppose you have an extension that implements change auditing for
tables, which works by creating triggers on the audited tables. You
enable auditing for specific tables by
On 2/17/22 08:52, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
**Briefly**
*qu. 2.* Why does "drop extension restrict" quietly succeed—having the
effect of cascade-dropping any subprogram that you've altered to depend
on the extension in question? This is at odds with the documented
meaning of "restrict".
But n
17 matches
Mail list logo
