Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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. > 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? +1 -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
