Re: [CORE] Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
От | Ron Mayer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [CORE] Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 46DC871D.7020709@cheapcomplexdevices.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [CORE] Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >> This shows 70% in favor of a change to "Postgres", so far. > > Of course, that's 70% of -advocacy, which by nature is going to be the > subset of the community most interested in this change and least > interested in the ensuing costs. I think the community that most needs to be polled are actually external to the community. IMHO The people most harmed by the non-intuitive name today are: * IT Customers who have a problem with the Postgre they got bundled with some CRM software they bought and need to ask for help. * Execs and sales people telling their customers that they're selling products based on Postgre's QL. * VC's wasting their time discussing pronunciation trivia with startups looking for funding instead of discussing the products and businesses of the startup. I think -advocacy is indeed a better place than -hackers to discuss it too. As far as I can tell, no changes discussed would touch the actual code. No processes renamed. No paths renamed. No libraries renamed. No variables renamed. Note also, most proposals I've seen in the discussion include both Postgres and PostgreSQL as acceptable terms so the only place that really really needs to change is the FAQ, and *gradually* the web site and docs.
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: