On Sunday 22 March 2009 22:46:20 Tom Lane wrote: > You really haven't convinced me that this is anything but > overcomplication.
Thinking about it some more what could be convincing is that an extension could be made of only SQL, with no module (.so) (I have a case here). If a single .sql file can be seen as an extension, I'd want to avoid naming it the same as the .so file itself. Having the term "module" refer either to a single .so (or .dll), or a .so with an accompanying .sql file to install it, or even just the SQL file... would add confusion, methinks. If there's not enough confusion here to grant separating what we call a module and what we call an extension, then I'll go edit my proposal :) > There might (or might not) be some use-case > for being able to declare that module A depends on module B, > but that doesn't mean we need a second layer of grouping. Agreed, this reason is not a good one for splitting module and extension. -- dim
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
