Re: Using Postgres as an alias

With respect, Ron, the majority of people in the original conversation were
clearly in favor of a change, as Bruce has said. In this more recent thread,
the most vocal opponents have made their opinions clear, but most of the
original participants have not. This does not appear to me to be a ³naming
coup.² Just a reasoned response to the many opinions voiced over a
reasonable period of time.

Andy

On 9/27/07 8:45 AM, "Ron Peterson" <ron(dot)peterson(at)yellowbank(dot)com> wrote:

> 2007-09-27_01:46:08-0400 Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>:
>
>> > We don't require 100% agreement on anything becuase it is hard to get
>> > anything done.
>
> 100% no. A clear consensus, yes. Or maybe we should just give anyone
> with an opinion on the subject CVS commit privileges and hash it out
> there? I don't see any evidence in this thread that a clear majority
> would prefer the use of 'Postgres' over the official name 'PostgreSQL'
> in official documentation. Is 'Postgres' acceptable shorthand (like
> 'Philly') - yes. Has the official name changed? No. If the official
> name is PostgreSQL, it should continue to be used as such, rather than
> subverted in a thinly disguised naming coup.
>
>> > We are looking for general agreement, and I think we are trying to get
>> > there.
>
> In chess, when you make the same move repeatedly without making any
> progress, it is called a draw. The game mercifully ends. I have not
> seen one person say "Oh, I understand where you are coming from now,
> I've changed my mind completely!". This conversation is going nowhere
> right now. Please don't bring it up again in three weeks. Bring it up
> in three years maybe.
>
> --
> Ron Peterson
> https://www.yellowbank.com/
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>