modularity of PostgreSQL

Hope Ho wrote:

Dear all,

I have some questions about PostgreSQL's modularity. We know that
PostgreSQL is famous for its good modularity, which allows users to
select which part they need. It also allow developers to easily replace
one part without affecting other parts. However, as I know, most
database engine, like MySQL, has such modularity: layered architecture
and small pieces of functionalities. Actually, it's a rule recognized
by lots of software design. Why is only PostgreSQL entitled "good
modularity"?

Because Postgres is modulare beyond the source code level. The modules
can be replaced without reprogramming the backend database, like
functions, triggers, operators, server-side languages, etc. And you can
even add new data types without having to modify the database backend
code.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Hope Ho <ho.hope@yahoo.com> writes:

We know that PostgreSQL is famous for its good modularity, which allows users to select which part they need. It also allow developers to easily replace one part without affecting other parts. However, as I know, most database engine, like MySQL, has such modularity: layered architecture and small pieces of functionalities. Actually, it's a rule recognized by lots of software design. Why is only PostgreSQL entitled "good modularity"?

Uh, does anyone authoritative describe it that way? I think we can
legitimately claim that Postgres is pretty extensible, but as for
modularity I'm not sure that it's got any great claim to fame.
To me modularity connotes an emphasis on dividing the system into
pieces separated by carefully-defined, small-footprint interfaces,
and we have not done spectacularly well on that score.

regards, tom lane

On Jan 17, 2008 6:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Uh, does anyone authoritative describe it that way? I think we can
legitimately claim that Postgres is pretty extensible, but as for
modularity I'm not sure that it's got any great claim to fame.
To me modularity connotes an emphasis on dividing the system into
pieces separated by carefully-defined, small-footprint interfaces,
and we have not done spectacularly well on that score.

Agreed. Postges is extensible, not modular.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

On Jan 18, 2008 8:09 AM, Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 17, 2008 6:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Uh, does anyone authoritative describe it that way? I think we can
legitimately claim that Postgres is pretty extensible, but as for
modularity I'm not sure that it's got any great claim to fame.
To me modularity connotes an emphasis on dividing the system into
pieces separated by carefully-defined, small-footprint interfaces,
and we have not done spectacularly well on that score.

Agreed. Postges is extensible, not modular.

s/ges/gres/g

no coffee yet :(

--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/