Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'

At 2016-04-05 12:33:56 +0530, ams@2ndQuadrant.com wrote:
>
> Álvaro: I did document and test the extra types you added, but now
> that I think about it a bit more, it's hard to argue that it's useful
> to have a table, for example, depend on an extension. There's really
> nothing about a table that "doesn't work without" an extension.

I think it makes sense to implement this for triggers and functions. It
may also be useful for indexes and materialised views, which can refer
to functions in an extension (and in future, sequences as well).

It's certainly good to know the grammar would work if we wanted to add
other object types in future, but I think we should leave it at that.

Thoughts?

-- Abhijit