On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> - --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:11:34 -0700 Selena Deckelmann
> <sdeckelmann(at)chrisking(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> I was just talking with one of my developers (Alexey) and he
>>> said, why
>>> not just use Pg. Which is an interesting point. Consider that
>>> is properly known as Volkswagen but commonly (and most of the time)
>>> referred to as VW.
>>> Why don't we just stop this whole PostgreSQL->Postgres->Postgre
>>> junk and
>>> just say, PostgreSQL, also referred to as PG.
>>> Heck, I know plenty of people that just say PG, or PGSQL, myself
>> +1 I like it.
>> From a design standpoint, 'Pg' is nicer. I know we're not there
>> yet, but
>> just sayin'.
> Just to clarify, I don't believe JD is advocating *changing the
> name* to Pg,
> only using Pg as the common name vs Postgres ...
> Right JD? :)
And I didn't mean to imply a whole name change. Only that 'Pg' is
easier on the eyes than 'PG'.
Information Systems Manager
Chris King Precision Components
Made in Portland, Oregon
www.chrisking.com / 503.972.4050 x230
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-09-27 18:10:26|
|Subject: Re: Using Postgres as an alias|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-09-27 18:07:48|
|Subject: Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.|