From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: 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 20:42:40 -0500
Message-ID: <25264.1297734160@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony>
References: <25160.1297664305@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<87r5ba4z1x.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
<1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony>
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> 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". (??)
Right. So it seems like we ought to stick with more or less the
existing terminology: those various components under contrib/ are
modules. Some of them are also extensions, but not all.
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, simon@2ndQuadrant.com, dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module"
In-Reply-To: <25264.1297734160@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