Re: Using Postgres as an alias

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 18:34, Dave Page wrote:
> > > ------- Original Message -------
> > > From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > > To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
> > > Sent: 26/09/07, 23:03:11
> > > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
>
> What I missed was the idea that postgres was now the preferred name, and that
> we should be promoting. AFAICT the only agreement was that the FAQ should
> officialy designate that Postgres is an acceptable short form the name
> PostgreSQL. All of todays changes seem to be an extension of that agreement
> (apparently by fiat, from what I can tell)

The goal was to promote "Postgres" as an alternate name. I thought I
had general agreement from the group to do this in both FAQs. If not, I
will revert it.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +