From: David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: 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 20:02:40 -0800
Message-ID: <DED8C233-CF02-41DE-AE3A-A967397AC487@kineticode.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25264.1297734160@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <25160.1297664305@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<87r5ba4z1x.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
<1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony>
<25264.1297734160@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Feb 14, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
The similarity of the meaning of the words "extension" and "module" is unfortunate, as it might be hard for one to remember which is which. But given the precedent of the word "module," I don't suppose there's much choice.
Best,
David
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: david@kineticode.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, simon@2ndQuadrant.com, dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module"
In-Reply-To: <DED8C233-CF02-41DE-AE3A-A967397AC487@kineticode.com>
* 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