Re: Extension tracking temp table and causing update failure

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Instead, I'm tempted to propose that dependency.c explicitly allow drops
> of objects that belong to the current extension, when an extension is
> being created or updated. =A0(That is, if we come across a dependency
> reference to the active extension, we just ignore it. =A0A quick look
> suggests that this would require only a very small patch.) =A0That would
> prevent the entire class of problems.
>
> It would also have the effect that explicit DROPs of member objects in
> extension scripts could be done without an explicit ALTER EXTENSION DROP
> first. =A0I think we'd originally decided that requiring the ALTER was a
> good safety feature, but is it really more than nanny-ism? =A0The intent
> of a DROP command seems pretty clear.
>
> Thoughts?

I know you were more looking for Dimitri's answer to this, but I like the i=
dea.