Re: "Extension" versus "module" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: "Extension" versus "module"
Date
Msg-id 1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: "Extension" versus "module"  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Responses Re: [DOCS] "Extension" versus "module"
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 12:48 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> > Appendix F (contrib.sgml and its subsidiary files) is pretty consistent
> > about using "module" to refer to a contrib, uh, module.
>
> I'm now thinking in those terms: the module is the shared object library
> that the backend needs to dlopen().  The extension is the SQL level
> object that wraps all its components.

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". (??)

--
 Simon Riggs           http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: sepgsql contrib module
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [DOCS] "Extension" versus "module"