On 2022-Feb-04, Tom Lane wrote: > If we invent modules I think they need to work more like extensions > naming-wise, ie they group objects but have no effect for naming.
I think modules are an orthogonal concept to extensions, and trying to mix both is messy. The way I see modules working is as a "logical" grouping of objects -- they provide encapsulated units of functionality. A module has private functions, which cannot be called except from other functions in the same module. You can abstract them out of the database design, leaving you with only the exposed functions, the public API. An extension is a way to distribute or package objects. An extension can contain a module, and of course you should be able to use an extension to distribute a module, or even several modules. In fact, I think it should be possible to have several extensions contribute different objects to the same module. But things like name resolution rules (search path) are not affected by how the objects are distributed, whereas the search path is critical in how you think about the objects in a module. If modules are just going to be extensions, I see no point. -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
