Re: nomenclature

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Michael Glaesemann wrote:

>
> On Jan 16, 2004, at 9:39 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'd agree with you there. I think they may be confusing for two
> different reasons: postmaster because there's no obvious connection
> (besides POSTmaster and POSTgreSQL)

This one I have to agree with also ... 'postmaster' always makes me think
of the mail system ... *but* ... for those that are dealing with the
database server, and who many never have seen a mail system in their life,
the same may not be true ...

The funny thing is that the "postmaster" doesn't really do anything, its
the postgres process that does all the work ... if you think about it, the
"postmaster" is actually aptly named, since it is the process that sorts
out the incoming connections and assigns them to backend processes ...
just like the postmaster does with your mail ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664