Subject: Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module" 
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>
In-Reply-To: <25264.1297734160@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:02:40 -0800
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>,
	Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DED8C233-CF02-41DE-AE3A-A967397AC487@kineticode.com>
References: <25160.1297664305@sss.pgh.pa.us> <87r5ba4z1x.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
	<1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony>
	<25264.1297734160@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@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". (??)
>=20
> 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