Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZ2MLGp=oQsOppupL3Sbo_nxrJbEsJ7E=G3mSM9jvVajw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >>> Could we name this "postgresql_fdw" instead? We already have several >>> ${productname}_fdw out there, and I don't want to get in the business of >>> having to guess variant spellings. > >> If you don't like variant spellings, having anything to do with >> PostgreSQL, aka Postgres, and usually discussed on the pgsql-* mailing >> lists, is probably a bad idea. > > [ snicker ] But still, Peter has a point: pgsql is not a name for the > product, it's at best an abbreviation. We aren't calling the other > thing orcl_fdw or ora_fdw. > > I think either postgres_fdw or postgresql_fdw would be fine. I liked the shorter name, myself, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: