Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2007, at 11:25 , Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> David Fetter wrote:
>>> Not so great. SQL:2003 has a special meaning for the word "module."
>>
>> Yeah I saw mention of that in another thread, but I really didn't like
>> the word plugins. Do you have another thought? Extensions?
>
> "Extensions" would tie in nicely with its common use in the docs,
> especially wrt pgxs:
>
>
I don't mind this term, BUT, what we need to get across is not just that
these are extensions, but that they are *standard* extensions, supplied
with PostgreSQL core code and supported by the PostgreSQL core team.
This would be analogous with, say, the standard perl modules (like
Exporter or IO::Handle) that come with the standard perl source
distribution. If we can get that idea across then we might lower the
resistance of people like hosting providers to loading them.
cheers
andrew
