Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
От | Thomas Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 38F2B11B.5EE52DF@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Postgres vs. PostgreSQL (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
> Why is someone (presumably from southern California) always changing all > mentions of "PostgreSQL" in the documentation to "Postgres"? Wouldn't it > be more productive the other way around? :) The document conventions are mentioned in the introductory section on "Notation". I'm trying for a consistant presentation within the documents, and had settled on "Postgres" as a readable, pronounceable form for our project. I try to keep "PostgreSQL" for introductory sections and book and chapter headings. I suppose that those conventions could be up for discussion (as is everything else wrt Postgres^HSQL) but I'm not sure that changing this particular convention buys us anything other than heavier docs. To my mind, this s/w is the only survivor of the Postgres family, and there is no need to distinguish it from other, older, relatives. - Thomas -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: