On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:52:27PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Michael Glaesemann wrote: > > > >On Jan 28, 2007, at 11:25 , Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >>David Fetter wrote: > >>>Not so great. SQL:2003 has a special meaning for the word "module." > >> > >>Yeah I saw mention of that in another thread, but I really didn't like > >>the word plugins. Do you have another thought? Extensions? > > > >"Extensions" would tie in nicely with its common use in the docs, > >especially wrt pgxs: > > I don't mind this term, BUT, what we need to get across is not just that > these are extensions, but that they are *standard* extensions, supplied > with PostgreSQL core code and supported by the PostgreSQL core team. > This would be analogous with, say, the standard perl modules (like > Exporter or IO::Handle) that come with the standard perl source > distribution. If we can get that idea across then we might lower the > resistance of people like hosting providers to loading them.
Integrating their docs into the standard PostgreSQL SGML (or XML, should we go there) docs would go a long, long way toward helping with this. Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster