Re: Using Postgres as an alias

On Thursday 27 September 2007 02:24, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The point being made is/was that although Postgres is considered as
> > acceptable as Philly is, PostgreSQL is the official name, and what should
> > be used in the *official* documentation ...
>
> OK, but when how do we promote the alias? And isn't the FAQ official?
> We don't have a community that lives together to promote an alias --- we
> have to do it in print somehow. Have you looked at the FAQ changes.
> Please do --- I think it looks fine.

I think it is confusing to use two forms of the name in the same
documentation. Especially where you have a Q & A for where the Q is
PostgreSQL and the A refers to Postgres. Those people the lord has blessed
enough to have been spared this thread probably wont have a clear
understanding of why there are two names being scattered throughout the
information.

IMHO, if we really believe the general consensous is that people prefer to use
the name Postgres, then why not let the momentum build organically from
sources outside of the core project; ie. blogs, articles, 3rd party software,
and other sources. Surely if there is strong demand, we should see it's use
pickup there. If we were to revist the topic in 6 months and you could show
google analytics data that showed Postgres as the most common usage of the
name, I think that would be a powerful argument.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} Postgre