From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module"
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:25:18 -0500
Message-ID: <20217.1297697118@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r5ba4z1x.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
References: <25160.1297664305@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<87r5ba4z1x.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> 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.
Hmm ... but what of contrib "modules" that don't build shared libraries
at all --- pgbench and pg_upgrade for example?
I think "shared library" is a perfectly fine term for that kind of
object, and we don't need an alias for it anyway.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module"
In-Reply-To: <20217.1297697118@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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