Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products

On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Brett W. McCoy wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Amos Hayes wrote:
>
> > I almost hate to ask, and really, it's not a big deal to me personally,
> > but why is it called "PostgreSQL"?
>
> Originally it was just Postgres, and didn't support any SQL. When it was
> redesigned with SQL support, that's when the SQL postfix came about.
> Actually, it was known as Postgres95 originally to differentiate it from
> the original Postgres, but as it moved towards SQL compliancy, the SQL
> postfix becamse the norm. The full story is in the PostgreSQL
> documentation.

Thanks for the reply Brett.

Has there ever been any discussion about a new name? It doesn't matter to
me but it would seem that with the current discussions about promotion and
competition, it might help to have a more "public friendly" name. It is
not obvious to me what a "postgres" is nor what it would do if I were to
install it. Granted that "oracle", "informix", and "sybase" are all a
little strange too, but they give hints (oracle, inform, base) about
containing knowledge. They also seem to roll off the tongue a little
easier.

Of course, changing the name (again) would be a BIG pain in the butt and
might cause current users a whole lot more confusion.

But anyway, I'm happy the thing works, is supported by a keen bunch, and
is free. Thank goodness for the RedHat installer blurbs on packages. It's
the only reason I found out about PostgreSQL in the first place.

--
Amos Hayes Systems Architect
ahayes(at)ingenia(dot)com Ingenia Group - Software Kinetics Ltd.
http://smurf.ingenia.com/~ahayes http://www.ingenia.com

"Remember: No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
- ELEANOR ROOSEVELT