| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-06-18 04:20:06 |
| Message-ID: | 5764CBF6.2000602@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/17/2016 10:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
>> Ugliness is a highly subjective qualifier. OTOH, Backwards
>> compatibility, at least when the checks are properly written :-), is a
>> very objective benefit.
>
> This is the argument that made us kept the PostgreSQL name instead of
> renaming back to Postgres. I'm not a fan of it.
>
Well ... no.
We kept the PostgreSQL name for three reasons.
Back in 2005, which was the last time we could have reasonably changed
it, nobody had the time/energy to do all of the
search-and-replace-and-contact-every-packager required. The folks who
were most enthusiastic about the change wanted someone else to do the
work. Plus, our Japanese community, which was like 40% of our worldwide
community at the time, was opposed to the change.
The third reason is that we have a registered trademark on "PostgreSQL",
but "postgres" is public domain.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | sobomax | 2016-06-18 04:28:12 | BUG #14199: The pg_ctl status check on server start is not compatible with the silent_mode=on |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-06-18 04:09:39 | Re: New design for FK-based join selectivity estimation |