From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module"
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:36:32 +0000
Message-ID: <1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r5ba4z1x.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
References: <25160.1297664305@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<87r5ba4z1x.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 12:48 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> > Appendix F (contrib.sgml and its subsidiary files) is pretty consistent
> > about using "module" to refer to a contrib, uh, module.
>
> I'm now thinking in those terms: the module is the shared object library
> that the backend needs to dlopen(). The extension is the SQL level
> object that wraps all its components.
I would say that some modules are extensions, but not all. A standalone
executable might be part of a module, but would not be an extension.
Remember also that not all modules out there on the net will have been
updated either, so we must be able to discuss "extension-izing a
module". (??)
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndQuadrant.com, dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module"
In-Reply-To: <1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox