| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jdrake(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
| Date: | 2007-08-31 20:01:15 |
| Message-ID: | 46D8738B.9080307@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Ron Mayer wrote:
> Decibel! wrote:
>
>> Someone mentioned companies that are already using Postgres instead of
>> PostgreSQL. I think it says something that the last 3 companies that
>> have started up with PostgreSQL
Yes it says they want their own brand and has zero relevance to this
discussion.
(Greenplum, Pervasive, EnterpriseDB)
>> have shunned the name. Heck, Greenplum and EnterpriseDB have shunned the
>> name multiple times (names that don't contain PostgreSQL but could:
>> Greenplum, MPP, Bizgres, EnterpriseDB, EnterpriseDB Advanced Server,
>> EnterpriseDB Postgres). Oh, I forgot ExtenDB, too.
See above.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> And "Red Hat Database"
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2007-08-31 20:11:24 | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2007-08-31 19:45:35 | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |