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

Re: Using Postgres as an alias

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Derek Rodner" <derek(dot)rodner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Using Postgres as an alias
Date: 2007-09-26 22:39:28
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
> >
> > Devrim's argument about renaming all packages is really strong for me.
> I think you missed the point of promoting the preferred short name entirely - it doesn't require changing of any packages at all.
> Think of it like an acronym in a paper. You spell it out the first time you use it, then use the short form thereafter. Similarly we can use the full name in packages, titles, introductions etc. and the short form in body text where it improves flow when reading.

I haven't problem with using it in any articles, books, etc. But in
technical documentation I prefer using only official full name. That's
all. I was happy with FAQ compromise, and I hoped so this unsensed
debate was finished. But this is new opening closed question.


In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Ron MayerDate: 2007-09-26 22:41:53
Subject: Re: Using Postgres as an alias
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2007-09-26 22:34:44
Subject: Re: Using Postgres as an alias

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group