| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-04-11 18:10:54 |
| Message-ID: | 570BE8AE.9030909@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 04/11/2016 11:04 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
> For that reason, I would be strongly opposed to adopting a "cute name"
> scheme for Postgres.
>
I am not arguing against your logic, just stating what I run into.
>
> Correct, they are used internally only.
>
Right and I am not suggesting that we migrate to a policy where we
reference only (or even primarily) the "cute name".
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh berkus | 2016-04-11 18:18:28 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Josh berkus | 2016-04-11 18:04:47 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |