From: | suga(at)netbsd(dot)com(dot)br |
---|---|
To: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly |
Date: | 2002-07-08 04:58:29 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0207080150150.25018-100000@unix-svr01.interno |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> That's obvious. Since QL means "query language," "Postgres QL" would
> refer to the old, QUEL-derived query language that Postgres used before
> it was ripped out and replaced with SQL, right?
>
> "Postgres" is simple, people use it anyway, and everybody now knows that
> Postgres uses SQL instead of its own query language now, so I think it
> would be a very good to just switch back to to that. With the demise of
> Great Bridge, we even have the postgres.org domain name free for this
> now.
So obvious for us, so enigmatic for non-technical people. Also,
"PostgresQL" could very well be understood as "another kind of SQL", as
people could read "Postgres Query Language". I agree that "Postgres" is a
better approach for what is desired. I still would like to know if this is
really under discussion, I mean, if such change would be possible someday.
[]'s
Ricardo.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Snyder | 2002-07-08 05:04:18 | Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly |
Previous Message | Steve Lane | 2002-07-08 04:40:44 | Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly |