Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Date: 2000-04-11 04:59:07
Message-ID: 38F2B11B.5EE52DF@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: 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(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2000-04-11 04:59:28
Subject: Re: Updated docs needed for 7.0
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-04-11 03:56:06
Subject: Updated docs needed for 7.0

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group