Re: "Extension" versus "module"

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
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"  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
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:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: sepgsql contrib module
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [DOCS] "Extension" versus "module"