On Sunday 22 March 2009 22:46:20 Tom Lane wrote:
> You really haven't convinced me that this is anything but
> overcomplication.
Thinking about it some more what could be convincing is that an extension
could be made of only SQL, with no module (.so) (I have a case here).
If a single .sql file can be seen as an extension, I'd want to avoid naming it
the same as the .so file itself. Having the term "module" refer either to a
single .so (or .dll), or a .so with an accompanying .sql file to install it, or
even just the SQL file... would add confusion, methinks.
If there's not enough confusion here to grant separating what we call a module
and what we call an extension, then I'll go edit my proposal :)
> There might (or might not) be some use-case
> for being able to declare that module A depends on module B,
> but that doesn't mean we need a second layer of grouping.
Agreed, this reason is not a good one for splitting module and extension.
--
dim
