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

Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Date: 2012-02-28 16:02:27
Message-ID: 6023.1330444947@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)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.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-02-28 16:20:36
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-02-28 15:27:36
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

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