Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA1A1337B4F; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:42:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20468-03; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:42:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BC71337B39; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:42:45 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p1F1geTX025265; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:42:40 -0500 (EST) To: Simon Riggs cc: Dimitri Fontaine , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module" In-reply-to: <1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony> References: <25160.1297664305@sss.pgh.pa.us> <87r5ba4z1x.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr> <1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony> Comments: In-reply-to Simon Riggs message dated "Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:36:32 +0000" Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:42:40 -0500 Message-ID: <25264.1297734160@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201102/55 X-Sequence-Number: 6403 Simon Riggs 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