Re: Add function dependencies

Dimitri Fontaine  writes:
> Peter Eisentraut  writes:
>> What's a "not-to-follow dependency"?

> In case of extensions the code follows dependencies to walk on all
> objects.

That seems pretty silly/broken.  You should only be touching *direct*
dependencies of the extension, IMO.  If there's something that's missed
by that algorithm, the way to fix it is to add more direct dependencies
at extension creation time; not to start a tree walk that is pretty
nearly guaranteed to land on things that don't belong to the extension.
		regards, tom lane