Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module"
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org,
	pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org
In-Reply-To: <87r5ba4z1x.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
References: <25160.1297664305@sss.pgh.pa.us> <87r5ba4z1x.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:36:32 +0000
Message-ID: <1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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