From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: DSO Terms Galore |
Date: | 2024-07-19 20:15:28 |
Message-ID: | DBCB8BDB-53AF-4CFE-8DF9-0E019BC2C1E9@justatheory.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 19, 2024, at 15:46, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The lack of consistent terminology seems at least potentially confusing for
> readers. My first reaction is that "shared library" is probably fine.
That’s the direction I was leaning, as well, but I thought I heard somewhere that the project used the term “module” for this feature specifically. That would be a bit nicer for the new PGXN Meta Spec revision I’m working on[1], where these three different types of things could be usefully separated:
* extensions: CREATE EXTENSION extensions
* modules: loadable modules for extensions, hooks, and workers (anything else?)
* apps: Programs and scripts like pg_top, pgAdmin, or pg_partman scripts[2]
Here the term “libraries” would be a little over-generic, and “share_libraries” longer than I'd like (these are JSON object keys).
Best,
David
[1]: https://github.com/pgxn/rfcs/pull/3
[2]: https://github.com/pgpartman/pg_partman/tree/master/bin/common
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-19 20:17:41 | Re: documentation structure |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-07-19 20:11:46 | Re: documentation structure |