On 2013-06-01 11:07:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> > On 05/31/2013 08:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Changing SQL syntax in the back-branches isn't normally something
> >> we do, but I confess I don't see any real reason not to do it in
> >> this case.
>
> > That was part of my hesitation, but I don't see any better way to fix
> > existing installations and this is pretty well self-contained. Any
> > other opinions out there?
>
> I don't like this approach much.
>
> 1. It does nothing to fix the issue in *existing* databases, which
> won't have pg_depend entries like this.
Well, you can now write an extension upgrade script that adds the
missing dependencies. To me that sounds better than letting it fiddle
with pg_depend.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services