We wouldn't like to have it called Ingres too...
Spoken language is different from written, so docs should be precise.
PostgreSQL is a mark, and should be used as careful as it deserves.
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>I just seem to recall a discussion where we decided to 'standardise' on
>PostgreSQL...I'm not fussed tho.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
>To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
>Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] followup on previous
>>Thomas liked Postgres rather than PostgreSQL in the docs, and I think
>>that's where it came from. I use Postgres in speaking, and PostgreSQL
>>in writing, so I guess either is OK.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-07-31 13:43:21|
|Subject: Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection |
|Previous:||From: Manfred Koizar||Date: 2003-07-31 10:38:23|
|Subject: Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection|