Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> On further reflection, it seems more in keeping with the coding
> elsewhere in this module to treat this as a distinct dependency type,
> instead of confusing it with a NORMAL dependency. There's no actual
> functional difference at the moment, but more info is better than less.
Seems better indeed. In my first implementation, we had no EXTENSION
kind of dependency and used only INTERNAL, which IIRC reads reverse than
the other ones. Having to finally have EXTENSION and REVERSE kinds of
dependencies here is not that surprising.
> Hence, proposed patch attached (which also improves some of the related
> comments).
+1 on the idea, although I'm not in a position to further review or play
with the patch today.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support