On Sunday 22 March 2009 22:46:20 Tom Lane wrote:
> You really haven't convinced me that this is anything but
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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2009-03-23 08:51:17|
|Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2009-03-23 08:32:17|
|Subject: Re: cs_CZ vs regression tests, part N|