Re: doc: Clarify Routines and Extension Membership

On Tue, Jul  5, 2022 at 08:12:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> +      A function that's marked as dependent on an extension is dropped when the
> +      extension is dropped, even if cascade is not specified.
> +      dependency checking in restrict mode <xref linkend="sql-dropextension"/>.
> +      A function can depend upon multiple extensions, and will be dropped when
> +      any one of those extensions is dropped.
> 
> Third line here seems like a copy/paste mistake?  Also I'd tend
> to mark up the keyword as <literal>CASCADE</literal>.
> 
> +      This form marks the procedure as dependent on the extension, or no longer
> +      dependent on that extension if <literal>NO</literal> is specified.
> 
> 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.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Indecision is a decision.  Inaction is an action.  Mark Batterson