Re: nomenclature

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

>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 ...
>
>
>
In all honesty, when I first installed Linux system with Postgresql I
couldn't help but wonder why I had two different MTA's.

>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 ...
>
>
>
Perhaps postgresd, postgresqld, or pg_daemon might be a little more
intuitive?

>----
>Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
>Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
>