Re: "Extension" versus "module"

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
> 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.

Hmm ... but what of contrib "modules" that don't build shared libraries
at all --- pgbench and pg_upgrade for example?

I think "shared library" is a perfectly fine term for that kind of
object, and we don't need an alias for it anyway.

            regards, tom lane