| From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, derek(dot)rodner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using Postgres as an alias |
| Date: | 2007-09-27 08:10:07 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790709270110p6f135dd1g2e180dda3a8c53c5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
2007/9/27, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
> > bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?
>
> Isn't it obvious from the number of people calling it Postgre that an
> acceptable short form should be promoted?
>
> Earlier in this round of discussion it seemed that most people didn't
> like seeing postgre, but we were split on an official name change to
> Postgres. Doesn't it therefore make sense to leave the official name,
> and just promote the acceptable short name?
?? I am sorry, but I really don't see any sense for it. No.
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-09-27 08:15:03 | Re: Using Postgres as an alias |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2007-09-27 08:01:28 | Re: Using Postgres as an alias |