Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jdrake(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
Cc: "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
Date: 2007-08-31 20:01:15
Message-ID: 46D8738B.9080307@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

Ron Mayer wrote:
> Decibel! wrote:

>
>> Someone mentioned companies that are already using Postgres instead of
>> PostgreSQL. I think it says something that the last 3 companies that
>> have started up with PostgreSQL

Yes it says they want their own brand and has zero relevance to this
discussion.

(Greenplum, Pervasive, EnterpriseDB)
>> have shunned the name. Heck, Greenplum and EnterpriseDB have shunned the
>> name multiple times (names that don't contain PostgreSQL but could:
>> Greenplum, MPP, Bizgres, EnterpriseDB, EnterpriseDB Advanced Server,
>> EnterpriseDB Postgres). Oh, I forgot ExtenDB, too.

See above.

Joshua D. Drake

>
> And "Red Hat Database"
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Mayer 2007-08-31 20:11:24 Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
Previous Message Ron Mayer 2007-08-31 19:45:35 Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)