On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:52:27PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> >On Jan 28, 2007, at 11:25 , Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>David Fetter wrote:
> >>>Not so great. SQL:2003 has a special meaning for the word "module."
> >>Yeah I saw mention of that in another thread, but I really didn't like
> >>the word plugins. Do you have another thought? Extensions?
> >"Extensions" would tie in nicely with its common use in the docs,
> >especially wrt pgxs:
> I don't mind this term, BUT, what we need to get across is not just that
> these are extensions, but that they are *standard* extensions, supplied
> with PostgreSQL core code and supported by the PostgreSQL core team.
> This would be analogous with, say, the standard perl modules (like
> Exporter or IO::Handle) that come with the standard perl source
> distribution. If we can get that idea across then we might lower the
> resistance of people like hosting providers to loading them.
Integrating their docs into the standard PostgreSQL SGML (or XML,
should we go there) docs would go a long, long way toward helping with
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Remember to vote!
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster