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

At 2016-02-29 19:56:07 -0600, Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com wrote:
>
> I don't see why this would be limited to just functions. […] Am I
> missing something?

No, you are not missing anything. The specific problem I was trying to
solve involved a function, so I sketched out a solution for functions.
Once we have some consensus on whether that's an acceptable approach,
I'll extend the patch in whatever way we agree seems appropriate.

> Maybe the better way to handle this would be through ALTER EXTENSION?

That's what this (second) patch does.

> Given the audience for this, I think it'd probably be OK to just
> provide a function that does this, instead of DDL.

That seems like a promising idea. Can you suggest some possible usage?
Thanks.

-- Abhijit