Re: nomenclature

On Jan 16, 2004, at 9:39 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I can't point to any OSS project that completely renames its parts. I
> think a shortened version of the name makes sense (in this case
> "postgres" works well, but so does "pgsql"), and other projects do
> similar things. "Psql" for the client and "postmaster" for the daemon
> are the ones that really confuse people, I think.

I'd agree with you there. I think they may be confusing for two
different reasons: postmaster because there's no obvious connection
(besides POSTmaster and POSTgreSQL), and psql because it's so close to
pgsql and pl/pgsql. People may not realize psql is just one client (of
other possible clients). They think it's tied much more closely to
PostgreSQL than it actually is. (Well, it is packaged with the whole
shebang and it can do a lot.) This may be one of the reasons for the
discussions regarding the psql slash commands (e.g., \d). They may
think it's just an SQL interface to the database, when it's more than
that. In a way it's like saying phppgadmin shouldn't have buttons
because it's not SQL-like enough :) But I digress.

> Now, is it worth changing? I doubt it. It doesn't take long to figure
> out, and would certainly cause confusion on the mailing lists. And, as
> you pointed out, it helps developers distinguish the parts, and maybe
> adds a little character to the software. Unless there's some kind of
> advocacy issue (i.e. people are avoiding the database because of
> perception), I can't think of much reason.

I agree.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com