On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:55:55PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The/that inconsistency ... choose one. Or actually, the "an ... the"
> > combination you used elsewhere doesn't grate on the ear either.
> >
> > + For each extension, refuse to drop anything if any objects (other than the
> > + extensions listed) depend on it. However, its own member objects, and routines
> > + that are explicitly dependent on this extension, are skipped.
> > + This is the default.
> >
> > "skipped" seems like a horrible choice of word; it could easily be read as
> > "they don't get dropped". I am not convinced that mentioning the member
> > objects here is an improvement either. In the first sentence you are
> > treating each extension as a monolithic object; why not in the second?
>
> I created a modified patch based on this feedback; patch attached. I
> rewrote the last change.
Patch applied to PG 13 and later, where extension dependency was added.
Thank you for the patch.
Thank you and apologies for being quiet here and on a few of the other threads. I've been on vacation and flagged as ToDo some of the non-simple feedback items that have come this way.
The change to restrict and description in drop extension needs to be fixed up (the other pages look good).
"This option prevents the specified extensions from being dropped if there exists non-extension-member objects that depends on any the extensions. This is the default."
At minimum: "...that depend on any of the extensions."
I did just now confirm that if any of the named extensions failed to be dropped the entire command fails. There is no partial success mode.
I'd like to avoid non-extension-member, and one of the main points is that the routine dependency is member-like, not actual membership. Hence the separate wording.
I thus propose to replace the drop extension / restrict paragraph and replace it with the following:
"This option prevents the specified extensions from being dropped if other objects - besides these extensions, their members, and their explicitly dependent routines - depend on them. This is the default."
Also, I'm thinking to change, on the same page (description):
"Dropping an extension causes its component objects,"
to be:
"Dropping an extension causes its member objects,"
I'm not sure why I originally chose component over member...
David J.