On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Like ALTER THING SET SCHEMA, ALTER THING SET EXTENSION is implicitly
assuming that there can be only one owning extension for an object.
I would assume that we would enforce that constraint anyway.  No?
Otherwise when you drop one of the two extensions, what happens to the
object?  Seems necessary for sanity.
Not sure --- what about nested extensions, for instance?  Or you could
think about objects that are shared between two extensions, and go away
only if all those extensions are dropped.  (RPM has exactly that
behavior for files owned by multiple packages, to take a handy example.)

My point is that the current restriction to just one containing
extension seems to me to be an implementation restriction, rather than
something inherent in the concept of extensions.  I have no intention of
trying to relax that restriction in the near future --- I'm just
pointing out that it could become an interesting thing to do.
OK. My point was that I think we should definitely *enforce* that
restriction until we have a very clear vision of what it means to do
anything else, so it sounds like we're basically in agreement.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 22 of 33 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedFeb 8, '11 at 4:54p
activeFeb 10, '11 at 4:59p
posts33
users5
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase