Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Nobody says we have to go crazy and hunt down and change every single reference.
> "Postgres" would simply be the preferred and official name, while "PostgreSQL"
> would be the older, alternative spelling.

And note that this is not much different than today - where
it seems there already are 2 "official" names. I see many
people from Core saying it's OK to call it "postgres".

In spoken usage at conferences, sales meetings it seems
to be 90% "Postgres", some "PostgreS S.Q.L." and some
"Postgre Sequel" (after all - that's what the current
capitalization implies) and "postgre" - and I'd say a
small minority of spoken usage saying "Postgres QL".

If one simply makes "Postgres" the "prefered official name"
and "PostgreSQL" the "accepted alternative name" it seems
no worse than the current practice. And with some regular
expression passes over parts of the web site it seems
it'd quickly get better than the current state of 2 official
and one common unofficial names.

>> That's a very qualitative judgement though, and
>> if there was overwhelming support in the community

I think the change would be nice - just so that many
presentations don't need to spend time discussing
this point - but then again I've recently been avoiding
the topic in sales calls and meetings with exec
management by saying it's built on a database
"similar to EnterpriseDB". :-)