Re: Using Postgres as an alias

On Sep 27, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> - --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 02:24:40 -0400 Bruce Momjian
> <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
>
>> OK, but when how do we promote the alias? And isn't the FAQ
>> official?
>> We don't have a community that lives together to promote an alias
>> --- we
>> have to do it in print somehow. Have you looked at the FAQ changes.
>> Please do --- I think it looks fine.
>
> We don't *promote* the alias ... we mention it in the FAQ as being
> *accepted*

It's not just mentioned in the FAQ as being accepted. The FAQ uses a
random mish-mash of both Postgres and PostgreSQL. In most cases
it feels as though they're two closely related, but different products.

For example, FAQ 1.2 talks about PostgreSQL, then parenthetically
tells people to look elsewhere to get involved in Postgres development.

FAQ 1.3 makes it clear that Windows XP and friends will run
PostgreSQL, but Windows 95 and friends can only run Postgres.

FAQ 1.8 says that any bugs found with PostgreSQL should be
reported to the developers, but if there's a problem with Postgres
you should simply update to the latest release.

It'd be easy to assume that PostgreSQL and Postgres were not the
same thing (perhaps commercial and open source variants of the
same thing). Heck, I'm not sure it doesn't imply that, and I know
they're the same thing, English is my native language and I'm
aware of the -advocacy thread of doom.

It's a misleading piece of documentation at this point, and should
be fixed.

Cheers,
Steve