Re: [HACKERS] "Extension" versus "module"

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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