From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Postgres Documentation List <docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Small changes for the "no excuses" release |
Date: | 1998-03-16 06:04:11 |
Message-ID: | 350CC0DB.3EFE0DC3@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > PostgreSQL seem to have a lot of names;
> > Postgres 95, Postgres, Pg, Pgsql ... All these names are used in
> > FAQ, filenames, docs, installation info, messages etc.
> >
> > Examples:
> > The backend executable is 'postgres', why not 'postgresql'?
> > INSTALL: "User postgres is the Postgres superuser"?
> >
> > I think it would be a good idea to use only "PostgreSQL" in all
> > docs, file names and so on, and "pgsql" as the official abbrev.
> >
> > This is one of the things new users notice and find strange.
> > I know, because I did, and people I know did it too.
>
> Added to TODO list.
Frankly, the voluminous docs, many adapted from the originals, seem to
read better using "Postgres" rather than "PostgreSQL" or "Postgres95". I
changed 'em all after defining what each is in the introduction. Would
be a good bit of work to change them back, particularly since folks
aren't volunteering in droves for work on documentation...
- Tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | t-ishii | 1998-03-16 06:20:36 | Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance |
Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-03-16 05:59:53 | Re: [HACKERS] datetime default 'now' broken? |