"Extension" versus "module"

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: "Extension" versus "module"
Date: 2011-02-14 06:18:25
Message-ID: 25160.1297664305@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

Appendix F (contrib.sgml and its subsidiary files) is pretty consistent
about using "module" to refer to a contrib, uh, module.

I considered doing a search-and-replace to change this to "extension",
but I'm not convinced that's a good idea. I think "extension" means a
specific kind of SQL object that we just invented, and it's not exactly
the same concept as "one of those subdirectories under contrib/". One
pretty obvious example is that contrib/spi calls itself a module, and
it's definitely not an extension --- it contains five extensions, none
of them named "spi". Another problem is that we'd like to speak of
upgrading a module from pre-9.1 to 9.1, and in only one of those two
states is it strictly correct to call it an "extension". But in some
sense it's still the same entity.

So I'm not sure whether to change the text at all. Comments?

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2011-02-14 11:48:26 Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module"
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-02-13 14:52:51 Re: [GENERAL] Gripe: bytea_output default => data corruption

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-14 07:00:45 MSVC build scripts not up to speed for extensions
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2011-02-14 06:13:06 Re: Scheduled maintenance affecting gitmaster