| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module" |
| Date: | 2011-02-15 01:42:40 |
| Message-ID: | 25264.1297734160@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 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". (??)
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-02-15 04:02:40 | Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module" |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-02-15 01:36:32 | Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module" |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-02-15 02:06:22 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Basic Recovery Control functions for use in Hot Standby. Pause, |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-02-15 01:36:32 | Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module" |