Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> That said, we should do something about ALTER EXTENSION SET SCHEMA and
> the relocatable property. I'm thinking that an extension stops being
> relocatable as soon as any of its reverse dependencies (all the tree) is
> not relocatable.
If you're worried about that, then it's questionable whether ALTER
EXTENSION SET SCHEMA makes sense at all, ever. I don't see any reason
to think that an extension is more fragile for this purpose than any
other random SQL dependencies. Also, an extension being relocatable
doesn't seem to me to guarantee that it can cope with its dependencies
moving around; they're really independent properties.
regards, tom lane