From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | John Wang <johncwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy List <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | name Re: Dropping postgres as a whole. |
Date: | 2007-09-27 18:13:40 |
Message-ID: | 20070927181340.GB28083@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Joshua D. Drake escribió:
> Interesting point but I don't think that would be a problem in general.
> Mainly because as good as we are... we are not Proctor & Gamble ;). Nor
> are we even in the same sector (business/financial etc...).
>
> I like Pg but I would also not be opposed to pgsql, which is extremely
> common.
I think we're trying to find a name for saying out aloud. Both "pg" and
"pgsql" are mostly used in writing.
I respect the idea of not renaming PostgreSQL to Postgres immediately,
just like I support the idea of eventually doing it. However, the idea
of dropping Postgres as a name/alias altogether seems blind and dumb.
Blind, because it ignores the fact that many people already use that
name. Dumb, because there is a lot of support (granted, not consensus)
for actually using it as the official name.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
Postgres Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-09-27 18:24:47 | Re: name Re: Dropping postgres as a whole. |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-09-27 18:10:26 | Re: Using Postgres as an alias |