Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

From: Jason Earl <jason(dot)earl(at)simplot(dot)com>
To: Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
Cc: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Colin Faber <cfaber(at)fpsn(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??
Date: 2002-02-26 19:00:02
Message-ID: 87wux0nk5p.fsf@npa01zz001.simplot.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:

> ...
>
> Agreed.
>
> > For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played.
>
> Hmm. Would "PostgreSQL version (Oracle + 1)i" be too transparent? ;)
>
> - Thomas

I think that it makes better sense than PostgreSQL XP. Whatever
"marketing" you guys plan to do make sure you mix in a vowel or two.

Personally I would promote the idea of going "all out" and naming the
new version of PostgreSQL something like:

PostgreSQL 2002i XP Anywhere eDatabase-O-Matic.NET

This might require a change in the MP3 pronunciation file, and you
probably wouldn't want to make the name change official until you
bumped up the maximum column length.

Jason

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-02-26 19:19:17 Re: Refactoring of command.c
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2002-02-26 18:28:17 Please, apply patch for contrib/tsearch