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

Hi Abhijit,

On 3/1/16 8:36 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/29/16 10:33 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>>> >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?
>
> pg_extension_dependency( regextension, any )
>
> where "any" would be all the other reg* types. That should be a lot less
> work to code up than messing with the grammar.

So where are we on this now?  Were you going to implement this as a 
function the way Jim suggested?

Alexander, you are signed up to review.  Any opinion on which course is 
best?

Thanks,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net