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

Re: followup on previous

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: followup on previous
Date: 2003-07-31 12:39:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
We wouldn't like to have it called Ingres too...
Spoken language is different from written, so docs should be precise. 
PostgreSQL is a mark, and should be used as careful as it deserves.


Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

>I just seem to recall a discussion where we decided to 'standardise' on
>PostgreSQL...I'm not fussed tho.
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
>To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
>Cc: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] followup on previous
>>Thomas liked Postgres rather than PostgreSQL in the docs, and I think
>>that's where it came from.  I use Postgres in speaking, and PostgreSQL
>>in writing, so I guess either is OK.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-07-31 13:43:21
Subject: Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection
Previous:From: Manfred KoizarDate: 2003-07-31 10:38:23
Subject: Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection

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