From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:59:07 +0000
Message-ID: <38F2B11B.5EE52DF@alumni.caltech.edu> (raw)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0004091713200.375-100000@localhost.localdomain>
> 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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu, peter_e@gmx.net
Subject: Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
In-Reply-To: <38F2B11B.5EE52DF@alumni.caltech.edu>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox