Re: nomenclature

> I too was a little confused when starting out with PostgreSQL as to
> what the difference was between some of these things, but they need
> different names so people can distinguish between them.
>

You make a good point, and I think that's easier for developers to work
with.

However, why do no other OSS projects use different names like that?
"Postmaster" is particularly confusing for those new to PostgreSQL,
since it's not clear that it belongs to PostgreSQL, and, indeed, seems
more like a clever name for an MTA.

If you look at apache, and mysql, they seem to be consistant (Red Hat
apparently renames apache to httpd, however that is just generalizing
the name, not making a new one). Simpler daemons tend to be consistant
(like ftp, etc), but those don't really count because there aren't very
many parts. MTAs usually have their own name, but sometimes steal the
"sendmail" name. Bind calls itself named (another general name). Samba
has sbmd.

I can't point to any OSS project that completely renames its parts. I
think a shortened version of the name makes sense (in this case
"postgres" works well, but so does "pgsql"), and other projects do
similar things. "Psql" for the client and "postmaster" for the daemon
are the ones that really confuse people, I think.

Now, is it worth changing? I doubt it. It doesn't take long to figure
out, and would certainly cause confusion on the mailing lists. And, as
you pointed out, it helps developers distinguish the parts, and maybe
adds a little character to the software. Unless there's some kind of
advocacy issue (i.e. people are avoiding the database because of
perception), I can't think of much reason.

Regards,
Jeff Davis