Re: "Extension" versus "module"
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: "Extension" versus "module" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1297733792.1747.18295.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: "Extension" versus "module" (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: [DOCS] "Extension" versus "module"
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 12:48 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Tom Lane <tgl@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 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". (??) -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: