Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:11:34 -0700 Selena Deckelmann
<sdeckelmann(at)chrisking(dot)com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 27, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was just talking with one of my developers (Alexey) and he said, why
>> not just use Pg. Which is an interesting point. Consider that
>> Volkswagen
>> is properly known as Volkswagen but commonly (and most of the time)
>> referred to as VW.
>>
>> Why don't we just stop this whole PostgreSQL->Postgres->Postgre
>> junk and
>> just say, PostgreSQL, also referred to as PG.
>>
>> Heck, I know plenty of people that just say PG, or PGSQL, myself
>> included.
>
> +1 I like it.
>
> From a design standpoint, 'Pg' is nicer. I know we're not there yet, but
> just sayin'.

Just to clarify, I don't believe JD is advocating *changing the name* to Pg,
only using Pg as the common name vs Postgres ...

Right JD? :)

- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFG++Tf4QvfyHIvDvMRAsXMAJkBZgVaPVWBLm8iZUhEfFD5VWmpoACdEwXt
YPJwZONqbz5JZS++zsjRyrM=
=wIIv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----