Re: doc: Clarify Routines and Extension Membership

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 06:27:17PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> 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.

No need to worry --- we will incorporate your suggestions whenever you
can supply them.  I know you waited months for these to be addressed.

> 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."

Agreed.

> 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.

Okay.

> 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."

Good.

> 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...

All done, in the attached patch.

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

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