From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
To: pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org
Subject: "Extension" versus "module"
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 01:18:25 -0500
Message-ID: <25160.1297664305@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
Appendix F (contrib.sgml and its subsidiary files) is pretty consistent
about using "module" to refer to a contrib, uh, module.
I considered doing a search-and-replace to change this to "extension",
but I'm not convinced that's a good idea. I think "extension" means a
specific kind of SQL object that we just invented, and it's not exactly
the same concept as "one of those subdirectories under contrib/". One
pretty obvious example is that contrib/spi calls itself a module, and
it's definitely not an extension --- it contains five extensions, none
of them named "spi". Another problem is that we'd like to speak of
upgrading a module from pre-9.1 to 9.1, and in only one of those two
states is it strictly correct to call it an "extension". But in some
sense it's still the same entity.
So I'm not sure whether to change the text at all. Comments?
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, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: "Extension" versus "module"
In-Reply-To: <25160.1297664305@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