| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module" |
| Date: | 2011-02-14 15:25:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20217.1297697118@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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.
Hmm ... but what of contrib "modules" that don't build shared libraries
at all --- pgbench and pg_upgrade for example?
I think "shared library" is a perfectly fine term for that kind of
object, and we don't need an alias for it anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-02-14 15:34:56 | Re: Building PDFs error: \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting level than \pd |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-02-14 11:48:26 | Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module" |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2011-02-14 15:49:44 | Re: Range Types: empty ranges |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-02-14 15:15:24 | Re: Scheduled maintenance affecting gitmaster |