Should next release by 8.0 (Was: Re: [GENERAL] I am being interviewed by OReilly )

Hey,

Oreilly and Assoc is interviewing me and they asked me two questions I
don't have the answers to:

When is 7.3 set to land?

When is 8.0 set to land?

I said, when there done, but they want a little more ;)

Joshua Drake
Co-Author Practical PostgreSQL
Command Prompt, Inc. -- Creators of Mammoth PostgreSQL

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Oreilly and Assoc is interviewing me and they asked me two questions I
> don't have the answers to:
> When is 7.3 set to land?
> When is 8.0 set to land?

7.3 will go beta at the end of August, barring major disasters.
As for final release, it's done when it's done --- the optimistic
schedule would be end of September, but we do not release by the
calendar. We release when we think the code is ready.

There is no plan anywhere that involves an 8.0; if anyone thinks
they know how many 7.* releases there will be, when 8.0 will be
out, or what will be in it, they are just blowing smoke. We have
a hard enough time seeing ahead to the next release...

regards, tom lane

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 01:46:46PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> When is 7.3 set to land?
>
> When is 8.0 set to land?

As a matter of curiosity, what would constitute "8.0" as opposed to,
say, 7.4? (I know that 7.0 happened partly because a great whack of
new features went in, but I haven't found anything in the -hackers
archives to explain why the number change. Maybe it's just a phase
of the moon thing, or something.)

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110

> When is 8.0 set to land?

You might point out that every release is an 8.0 by the pathetic
standards now used by many or most products for labeling releases.

We take a perverse pride in versioning The Old Fashioned Way, perhaps to
an extreme ;)

- Thomas

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 01:46:46PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > When is 7.3 set to land?
> >
> > When is 8.0 set to land?
>
> As a matter of curiosity, what would constitute "8.0" as opposed to,
> say, 7.4? (I know that 7.0 happened partly because a great whack of
> new features went in, but I haven't found anything in the -hackers
> archives to explain why the number change. Maybe it's just a phase
> of the moon thing, or something.)

Actually, it was a wack of new features in 6.5 when we realized we had
to up the version on the next release. I think multi-master replication
would be an 8.0 item, and point-in-time recovery.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> writes:
> As a matter of curiosity, what would constitute "8.0" as opposed to,
> say, 7.4? (I know that 7.0 happened partly because a great whack of
> new features went in, but I haven't found anything in the -hackers
> archives to explain why the number change. Maybe it's just a phase
> of the moon thing, or something.)

I remember quite a deal of argument about whether to call it 7.0 or 6.6;
we had started that cycle with the assumption that it would be called
6.6, and changed our minds near the end. Personally I'd have preferred
to stick the 7.* label on starting with the next release (actually
called 7.1) which had WAL and TOAST in it. That was really a
significant set of changes, both on the inside and outside.

You could make a fair argument that the upcoming 7.3 ought to be
called 8.0, because the addition of schema support will break an
awful lot of client-side code ;-). But I doubt we will do that.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> writes:
> > As a matter of curiosity, what would constitute "8.0" as opposed to,
> > say, 7.4? (I know that 7.0 happened partly because a great whack of
> > new features went in, but I haven't found anything in the -hackers
> > archives to explain why the number change. Maybe it's just a phase
> > of the moon thing, or something.)
>
> I remember quite a deal of argument about whether to call it 7.0 or 6.6;
> we had started that cycle with the assumption that it would be called
> 6.6, and changed our minds near the end. Personally I'd have preferred
> to stick the 7.* label on starting with the next release (actually
> called 7.1) which had WAL and TOAST in it. That was really a
> significant set of changes, both on the inside and outside.
>
> You could make a fair argument that the upcoming 7.3 ought to be
> called 8.0, because the addition of schema support will break an
> awful lot of client-side code ;-). But I doubt we will do that.

Yes, the problem with incrementing on major features is that we would
start to look like Emacs numbering fairly quickly.

At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tom Lane wrote:

> You could make a fair argument that the upcoming 7.3 ought to be
> called 8.0, because the addition of schema support

Star-schema support?

will break an
> awful lot of client-side code ;-).

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.

Heh Heh Heh

Let's do the M$ trick and pick a name that everyone will confuse and
assume it's us:

"Standard SQL 1.0".

So when people use the popularity question for deciding their database
"what database does everyone else use? I just want the standard one..."

We win. :)

+ Justin

>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> You could make a fair argument that the upcoming 7.3 ought to be called
> 8.0, because the addition of schema support will break an awful lot of
> client-side code ;-). But I doubt we will do that.

Actually, from reading that thread, I started to think along those lines
too ... it is a major change, is there a reason why going to 8.0 on this
one is a bad idea? I realize that its *only* been 2 years that we've been
in v7.0 ... :) v7.0 was released back in Mar of 2000 ... so its almost
2.5 years ...

I don't necessarily agree with Bruce's thought that distributed
replication would be the marker, since there is no set path to that right
now, nor is there, I believe, enough knowledge about whether or not bring
such in will affect anyting other then the backend itself ...

With this next release, we are looking at breaking the front-end apps, as
I understand it ... I think that's pretty drastic of a change to force
going to 8.0 ...

We don't release fast, or often, so our v7.2 is like some other projects
v7.26, at the rate some of them release ...

I'd like to see this next release go to 8.0 ...

On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> writes:
> > > As a matter of curiosity, what would constitute "8.0" as opposed to,
> > > say, 7.4? (I know that 7.0 happened partly because a great whack of
> > > new features went in, but I haven't found anything in the -hackers
> > > archives to explain why the number change. Maybe it's just a phase
> > > of the moon thing, or something.)
> >
> > I remember quite a deal of argument about whether to call it 7.0 or 6.6;
> > we had started that cycle with the assumption that it would be called
> > 6.6, and changed our minds near the end. Personally I'd have preferred
> > to stick the 7.* label on starting with the next release (actually
> > called 7.1) which had WAL and TOAST in it. That was really a
> > significant set of changes, both on the inside and outside.
> >
> > You could make a fair argument that the upcoming 7.3 ought to be
> > called 8.0, because the addition of schema support will break an
> > awful lot of client-side code ;-). But I doubt we will do that.
>
> Yes, the problem with incrementing on major features is that we would
> start to look like Emacs numbering fairly quickly.

At 2.5years in v7.x, I think its going to be a long while before we start
getting into the 20's :)

> At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.

Ya, that's it ... we've only spent, what, 8 years now making 'PostgreSQL'
known, so let's change the name *just* so that we can start at 1.0 and
face a new challenge of getting ppl to recognize the name?

> With this next release, we are looking at breaking the front-end apps, as
> I understand it ... I think that's pretty drastic of a change to force
> going to 8.0 ...
>
> We don't release fast, or often, so our v7.2 is like some other projects
> v7.26, at the rate some of them release ...
>
> I'd like to see this next release go to 8.0 ...

Hmmm...makes sense. I'd be for it.

BTW - has anyone looked at Neil's PREPARE patch yet?

Chris

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
>> At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.

> Ya, that's it ... we've only spent, what, 8 years now making 'PostgreSQL'
> known, so let's change the name *just* so that we can start at 1.0 and
> face a new challenge of getting ppl to recognize the name?

I've heard a number of people opine that we should go back to just plain
'Postgres', which is pronounceable by the uninitiate, and besides which
that's what we use informally most of the time. 'PostgreSQL' is about
as marketing-unfriendly a name as you could easily find...

I'd not be in favor of picking something new out of the blue, but I'd
pick 'Postgres' over 'PostgreSQL' if it were up to me.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> >> At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.
>
> > Ya, that's it ... we've only spent, what, 8 years now making 'PostgreSQL'
> > known, so let's change the name *just* so that we can start at 1.0 and
> > face a new challenge of getting ppl to recognize the name?
>
> I've heard a number of people opine that we should go back to just plain
> 'Postgres', which is pronounceable by the uninitiate, and besides which
> that's what we use informally most of the time. 'PostgreSQL' is about
> as marketing-unfriendly a name as you could easily find...

I personally agree.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

"Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
<snip>

We can also go any number in between... like "7.5"...

:)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> I'd like to see this next release go to 8.0 ...
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

While there are big changes between 7.2 and the next release, they
aren't really any bigger than others during the 7.x series. I don't
really feel that the next release is worth an 8.0 rather than a 7.3. But
this is just an opinion; it's not something I'm prepared to argue about.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC

On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> I'd not be in favor of picking something new out of the blue, but I'd
> pick 'Postgres' over 'PostgreSQL' if it were up to me.

As I recall the only real reason for the change was to emphasize that
the query language had changed to SQL. Back in my young and naive days
(probably early '95) I remember picking up Postgres, realizing it didn't
use SQL as the query language, thinking, "How terrible!" and immediately
dropping it for MySQL. (I'm older and wiser now, but it's too late--all
the systems that let you use something less crappy than SQL are now
gone. *Sigh*.) Anyway, I expect that others had the same experience, and
thus something like that was required to get people who had previously
dropped it to go back to it again.

Now that QUEL or PostQUEL or whatever it was is long gone and fogotten
(except maybe in certain CA-Unicenter shops), I see no reason we
couldn't go back to "Postgres" now.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC

In my book, schema support is a big thing, leading to rethink a lot of
database organization and such. PostgreSQL 8 would stress this
importance.

--
Alessio F. Bragadini alessio(at)albourne(dot)com
APL Financial Services http://village.albourne.com
Nicosia, Cyprus phone: +357-22-755750

"It is more complicated than you think"
-- The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Curt Sampson wrote:

>
> While there are big changes between 7.2 and the next release, they
> aren't really any bigger than others during the 7.x series. I don't
> really feel that the next release is worth an 8.0 rather than a 7.3. But
> this is just an opinion; it's not something I'm prepared to argue about.

Actually, the "big" change is such that will, at least as far as I'm
understanding it, break pretty much every front-end applicaiton ... which,
I'm guessing, is pretty major, no? :)

On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> >> At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.
>
> > Ya, that's it ... we've only spent, what, 8 years now making 'PostgreSQL'
> > known, so let's change the name *just* so that we can start at 1.0 and
> > face a new challenge of getting ppl to recognize the name?
>
> I've heard a number of people opine that we should go back to just plain
> 'Postgres', which is pronounceable by the uninitiate, and besides which

I can never figure this out ... what is so difficult about 'Postgres-Q-L'?

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> Actually, the "big" change is such that will, at least as far as I'm
> understanding it, break pretty much every front-end applicaiton ...

Only those that inspect system catalogs --- I'm not sure what percentage
that is, but surely it's not "pretty much every" one. psql for example
is only affected because of its \d commands.

regards, tom lane

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > Actually, the "big" change is such that will, at least as far as I'm
> > understanding it, break pretty much every front-end applicaiton ...
>
> Only those that inspect system catalogs --- I'm not sure what percentage
> that is, but surely it's not "pretty much every" one. psql for example
> is only affected because of its \d commands.

Okay, anyone have any ideas of other packages that would inspect the
system catalog? The only ones I could think of, off the top of my head,
would be pgAccess, pgAdmin and phpPgAdmin ... but I would guess that any
'administratively oriented' interface would face similar problems, no?

> Actually, the "big" change is such that will, at least as far as I'm
> understanding it, break pretty much every front-end applicaiton ... which,
> I'm guessing, is pretty major, no? :)

I've always thought of our release numbering as having "themes". The 6.x
series took Postgres from interesting but buggy to a solid system, with
a clear path to additional capabilities. The 7.x series fleshes out SQL
standards compliance and rationalizes the O-R features, as well as adds
to robustness and speed with WAL etc. And the 8.x series would enable
Postgres to extend to distributed systems etc., quite likely having some
fundamental restructuring of the way we handle sources of data (remember
our discussions a couple years ago regarding "tuple sources"?).

So I feel that bumping to 8.x just for schemas is not necessary. I
*like* the idea of having more than one or two releases in a series, and
would be very happy to see a 7.3 released.

- Thomas

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > Actually, the "big" change is such that will, at least as far as I'm
> > understanding it, break pretty much every front-end applicaiton ... which,
> > I'm guessing, is pretty major, no? :)
>
> I've always thought of our release numbering as having "themes". The 6.x
> series took Postgres from interesting but buggy to a solid system, with
> a clear path to additional capabilities. The 7.x series fleshes out SQL
> standards compliance and rationalizes the O-R features, as well as adds
> to robustness and speed with WAL etc. And the 8.x series would enable
> Postgres to extend to distributed systems etc., quite likely having some
> fundamental restructuring of the way we handle sources of data (remember
> our discussions a couple years ago regarding "tuple sources"?).
>
> So I feel that bumping to 8.x just for schemas is not necessary. I
> *like* the idea of having more than one or two releases in a series, and
> would be very happy to see a 7.3 released.

Seems I'm the only one for 8.x, so 7.3 it is :)

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > >> At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.
> >
> > > Ya, that's it ... we've only spent, what, 8 years now making 'PostgreSQL'
> > > known, so let's change the name *just* so that we can start at 1.0 and
> > > face a new challenge of getting ppl to recognize the name?
> >
> > I've heard a number of people opine that we should go back to just plain
> > 'Postgres', which is pronounceable by the uninitiate, and besides which
>
> I can never figure this out ... what is so difficult about 'Postgres-Q-L'?

Of course I got it completely round the wrong and thought Postgres was the
latter of the two names. I've got to go change my documents now.

--
Nigel J. Andrews
Director

---
Logictree Systems Limited
Computer Consultants

Can't figure it out cause you're a techie most of us that subscribe
to these lists are... When I was doing tech support i had people asking
for help with [these aren't typo's]

Prostgre sequel

Postresquirrel

pgsql

psql

Progress

etc...

and alot of the folks i talked to were not newbies, they had been using
it for a while.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier
> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 10:05 AM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Bruce Momjian; Andrew Sullivan; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] I am being interviewed by OReilly
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > >> At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.
> >
> > > Ya, that's it ... we've only spent, what, 8 years now making
> 'PostgreSQL'
> > > known, so let's change the name *just* so that we can start at 1.0 and
> > > face a new challenge of getting ppl to recognize the name?
> >
> > I've heard a number of people opine that we should go back to just plain
> > 'Postgres', which is pronounceable by the uninitiate, and besides which
>
> I can never figure this out ... what is so difficult about 'Postgres-Q-L'?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
>
>

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > >> At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.
> >
> > > Ya, that's it ... we've only spent, what, 8 years now making 'PostgreSQL'
> > > known, so let's change the name *just* so that we can start at 1.0 and
> > > face a new challenge of getting ppl to recognize the name?
> >
> > I've heard a number of people opine that we should go back to just plain
> > 'Postgres', which is pronounceable by the uninitiate, and besides which
>
> I can never figure this out ... what is so difficult about 'Postgres-Q-L'?

Beats me, but when the Addison-Wesley publisher called to talk to me
about doing a book, he called is Postgre. I knew we were in trouble.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > > Actually, the "big" change is such that will, at least as far as I'm
> > > understanding it, break pretty much every front-end applicaiton ...
> >
> > Only those that inspect system catalogs --- I'm not sure what percentage
> > that is, but surely it's not "pretty much every" one. psql for example
> > is only affected because of its \d commands.
>
> Okay, anyone have any ideas of other packages that would inspect the
> system catalog? The only ones I could think of, off the top of my head,
> would be pgAccess, pgAdmin and phpPgAdmin ... but I would guess that any
> 'administratively oriented' interface would face similar problems, no?

That's a good point. Only the admin stuff is affected, not all
applications. All applications _can_ now use schemas, but for most
cases applications remain working unchanged.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Well, for one:

An awful lot of people think the name is:
"Postgre-SQL", or
"Postgre-SEQUEL"

If marketing matters (as a lot of people have been
suggesting in recent threads), then better to have a
non-ambiguous name that is easy to pronounce
correctly.

--- "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> wrote:
> I can never figure this out ... what is so difficult
> about 'Postgres-Q-L'?
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 01:50:05PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Beats me, but when the Addison-Wesley publisher called to talk to me
> about doing a book, he called is Postgre. I knew we were in trouble.

For what it's worth, the calling cards they printed for me here
(which I have used exactly 0 times) when I arrived have "Postgre SQL
Administrator" on them. And I corrected the typo 5 times and sent it
back for proof each time. They just didn't believe it, I guess.

Anyway, I never thing about it. But I _do_ tend to say "Postgres".
Possibly for the same reason that I find "GNU/Linux" to be too much
trouble.

Andrew "not to mention Micrsoft SQL Server 20,642" Sullivan

--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110

Bruce Momjian dijo:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> > I can never figure this out ... what is so difficult about 'Postgres-Q-L'?
>
> Beats me, but when the Addison-Wesley publisher called to talk to me
> about doing a book, he called is Postgre. I knew we were in trouble.

Lots of people here calls it "Postgre", even something like "Postgree"
(Postgri in spanish). Others say "Postgre-S-Q-L". But the vast
majority uses plain "Postgres". I have yet to meet somebody who says
"Postgres-Q-L".

I think the pronunciation is really counter-intuitive. Not that it's
difficult to say; I think it's difficult to read.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>)
"God is real, unless declared as int"

> Beats me, but when the Addison-Wesley publisher called to talk to me
> about doing a book, he called is Postgre. I knew we were in trouble.

I know someone who does that too (even after telling him it is NOT Postgre a
LOT of times)... I just don't know where people get that idea!

Sander.

Hi!

> I've always thought of our release numbering as having "themes". The 6.x
> series took Postgres from interesting but buggy to a solid system, with
> a clear path to additional capabilities. The 7.x series fleshes out SQL
> standards compliance and rationalizes the O-R features, as well as adds
> to robustness and speed with WAL etc. And the 8.x series would enable
> Postgres to extend to distributed systems etc.

This sounds very good to me. I get the feeling sometimes that software
projects just increase the major version number to 'sound interesting'. I
don't think that PostgreSQL needs that anymore. A modest numbering policy
might even give it a 'stable' feeling...

Sander.

Sander Steffann wrote:
> > Beats me, but when the Addison-Wesley publisher called to talk to me
> > about doing a book, he called is Postgre. I knew we were in trouble.
>
> I know someone who does that too (even after telling him it is NOT Postgre a
> LOT of times)... I just don't know where people get that idea!

I didn't write it correctly. He said "Postgray" I think or "Postgree".
Both made me feel a little ill. The strange thing is that until
PostgreSQL got popular, no one really said the word, we just wrote it,
and my editor has a "PostgreSQL" string macro so I don't even type it
anymore, but when you start to talk to people, it does become a problem.

The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit because it is so
close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Jeff Eckermann wrote:

> Well, for one:
>
> An awful lot of people think the name is:
> "Postgre-SQL", or
> "Postgre-SEQUEL"
>
> If marketing matters (as a lot of people have been
> suggesting in recent threads), then better to have a
> non-ambiguous name that is easy to pronounce
> correctly.

Post-gres-Q-L ... again, that is difficult to pronounce in what way? Or
is it just too much work to educate ppl? I'm sorry, but I have alot of
ppl that ask me about 'Postgres', and the first thing I do is explain to
them what *Postgres* was, and how to pronounce Post-gres-Q-L ...
personally, I've been saying it for so long now that it just rolls off the
tongue *shrug*

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> Post-gres-Q-L ... again, that is difficult to pronounce in what way?

With the accent on which sylable?

Rich
:-)

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Rich Shepard wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > Post-gres-Q-L ... again, that is difficult to pronounce in what way?
>
> With the accent on which sylable?

I never really thought about it ... but you tell me:

http://www2.ca.postgresql.org/postgresql.mp3

I don't really hear an accent on any of the syllables in there, but I've
been known to be tone deaf too :)

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Rich Shepard wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > > Post-gres-Q-L ... again, that is difficult to pronounce in what way?
> >
> > With the accent on which sylable?
>
> I never really thought about it ... but you tell me:
>
> http://www2.ca.postgresql.org/postgresql.mp3
>
> I don't really hear an accent on any of the syllables in there, but I've
> been known to be tone deaf too :)

I can't say I've had any trouble thinking how to say PostgreSQL but I don't
think it rolls off the tongue as easily as SQL Server for instance.

Although I think that name is a good name using Postgres SQL Server would
enable people to shorten it to just the Postgres part while still clearly
identifying what it is they are on about, I'm ignoring the issue of more
experienced people remembering/knowing about just plain Postgres. Plus it has
the added benefit of being similar to another product, i.e. Microsoft SQL
Server, which people already say. Sometimes, okay so most times, this is
shortened to SQL Server and we'd just be reversing this emphasis.

Anyway, I do quite like the PostgreSQL, even if I've had to go back and
capitalise that S twice now, I just thought I'd point out the blindingly
obvious.

--
Nigel J. Andrews
Director

---
Logictree Systems Limited
Computer Consultants

On July 5, 2002 10:27 am, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > > Actually, the "big" change is such that will, at least as far as I'm
> > > understanding it, break pretty much every front-end applicaiton ...
> >
> > Only those that inspect system catalogs --- I'm not sure what percentage
> > that is, but surely it's not "pretty much every" one. psql for example
> > is only affected because of its \d commands.
>
> Okay, anyone have any ideas of other packages that would inspect the
> system catalog? The only ones I could think of, off the top of my head,
> would be pgAccess, pgAdmin and phpPgAdmin ... but I would guess that any
> 'administratively oriented' interface would face similar problems, no?

PyGreSQL pokes into the catalogues a bit.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit because it is so
> close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.

... and a M$ trademark violation suit, just waiting to happen whenever
M$ decides we are big enough to be a threat.

Stay far far away from any name including "SQL Server".

(I still like plain "Postgres" though.)

regards, tom lane

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> I never really thought about it ... but you tell me:
>
> http://www2.ca.postgresql.org/postgresql.mp3
>
> I don't really hear an accent on any of the syllables in there, but I've
> been known to be tone deaf too :)

No sound card or speakers here, only the built-in squeeker that comes with
all units. In fact, I was just teasing, anyway, because the thread on the
name and its pronounciation had taken on such a long and serious life. From
a linguistic perspective, however, I tend to pronounce it with the accent on
the second syllable.

Ciao,

Rich

Dr. Richard B. Shepard, President

Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM)
2404 SW 22nd Street | Troutdale, OR 97060-1247 | U.S.A.
+ 1 503-667-4517 (voice) | + 1 503-667-8863 (fax) | rshepard(at)appl-ecosys(dot)com
http://www.appl-ecosys.com

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
>>The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit because it is so
>>close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.
>
>
> ... and a M$ trademark violation suit, just waiting to happen whenever
> M$ decides we are big enough to be a threat.
>
> Stay far far away from any name including "SQL Server".

IIRC SQL Server (or "SQL-server" to be exact) is just a definition from
the SQL standard. I doubt whether Microsoft can monopolize something
like that (the SQL standard was there first right?). Of course I am
making a pretty big assumption about the sanity of the actual law :)

Whether it is really worthwhile to invest resources into that is an
entirely different matter. Personally, I am happy with PostgreSQL.

Jochem

Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)oli(dot)tudelft(dot)nl> writes:
>> Stay far far away from any name including "SQL Server".

> IIRC SQL Server (or "SQL-server" to be exact) is just a definition from
> the SQL standard. I doubt whether Microsoft can monopolize something
> like that (the SQL standard was there first right?).

Microsoft has managed to make "Windows" into a trademark, even though
it's by rights a generic term. Yes, I know the name of their product
is really "Microsoft Windows", but just try calling something "Windows"
and see what happens ...

Even if we avoid any trademark problems, "Postgres SQL Server" just
seems way too much like a me-too name. It *will* cause confusion
with Microsoft's product.

regards, tom lane

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Jeff Eckermann wrote:
>
> > Well, for one:
> >
> > An awful lot of people think the name is:
> > "Postgre-SQL", or
> > "Postgre-SEQUEL"
> >
> > If marketing matters (as a lot of people have been
> > suggesting in recent threads), then better to have a
> > non-ambiguous name that is easy to pronounce
> > correctly.
>
> Post-gres-Q-L ... again, that is difficult to pronounce in what way? Or

I think the problem is that PostgreSQL is both a name and an acronym,
mixed into single word. Postgres is a name, SQL is an acronym,
PostgreSQL is both. That is where people get confused.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Post-gres-Q-L ... again, that is difficult to pronounce in what way? Or

> I think the problem is that PostgreSQL is both a name and an acronym,
> mixed into single word. Postgres is a name, SQL is an acronym,
> PostgreSQL is both. That is where people get confused.

The problem is that the typography makes it look like the split should
be "Postgre / SQL". I can see exactly why people think the name portion
is "Postgre" --- it's not at all apparent that the "S" is part of both
parts of the word, until you've been told.

Had we capitalized the name like "PostgresQL" maybe the correct
pronunciation would be more obvious.

regards, tom lane

> I think the problem is that PostgreSQL is both a name and an acronym,
> mixed into single word. Postgres is a name, SQL is an acronym,
> PostgreSQL is both. That is where people get confused.

thats the point..
i think "postgres" sounds better :)
infact i have posted , a couple of times, to pgsql-general(at)postgres(dot)org :p
^_^
--

Varun
------
@n=(544290696690,305106661574,116357),$b=16,@c=' .JPacehklnorstu'=~
/./g;for$n(@n){map{$h=int$n/$b**$_;$n-=$b**$_*$h;$c[(at)c]=$h}c(0..9);
push(at)p,map{$c[$_]}(at)c[c($b..$#c)];$#c=$b-1}print(at)p;sub'c{reverse @_}

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Post-gres-Q-L ... again, that is difficult to pronounce in what way? Or
>
> > I think the problem is that PostgreSQL is both a name and an acronym,
> > mixed into single word. Postgres is a name, SQL is an acronym,
> > PostgreSQL is both. That is where people get confused.
>
> The problem is that the typography makes it look like the split should
> be "Postgre / SQL". I can see exactly why people think the name portion
> is "Postgre" --- it's not at all apparent that the "S" is part of both
> parts of the word, until you've been told.
>
> Had we capitalized the name like "PostgresQL" maybe the correct
> pronunciation would be more obvious.

Yep, there is no other word that has an acronym part and a word part,
and where capitalization not match in the two parts. It is almost a
recipe for confusion.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Post-gres-Q-L ... again, that is difficult to pronounce in what way? Or
>
> > I think the problem is that PostgreSQL is both a name and an acronym,
> > mixed into single word. Postgres is a name, SQL is an acronym,
> > PostgreSQL is both. That is where people get confused.
>
> The problem is that the typography makes it look like the split should
> be "Postgre / SQL". I can see exactly why people think the name portion
> is "Postgre" --- it's not at all apparent that the "S" is part of both
> parts of the word, until you've been told.
>
> Had we capitalized the name like "PostgresQL" maybe the correct
> pronunciation would be more obvious.

No one pronounces MySQL as Mice-QL.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit because it is so
> > close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.
>
> ... and a M$ trademark violation suit, just waiting to happen whenever
> M$ decides we are big enough to be a threat.
>
> Stay far far away from any name including "SQL Server".
>
> (I still like plain "Postgres" though.)

Nobody to date, I don't believe, has jumped down ppls throat for
informally calling it Postres .. the "formal" name is PostgreSQL ..
nothing stop's ppl from using Postgres in 'conversation' though ... I
personaly use PgSQL more often then not, since I find ppl seem to be able
to spell it, while alot of ppl that I've dealt with have a problem with
spelling the Postgres part of PostgreSQL for some reason ...

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Had we capitalized the name like "PostgresQL" maybe the correct
> pronunciation would be more obvious.
^^^^

Remove this word and you'd be dead on. Perhaps the simplest resolution is
to do just this.

Rich

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit because it is so
> > > close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.
> >
> > ... and a M$ trademark violation suit, just waiting to happen whenever
> > M$ decides we are big enough to be a threat.
> >
> > Stay far far away from any name including "SQL Server".
> >
> > (I still like plain "Postgres" though.)
>
> Nobody to date, I don't believe, has jumped down ppls throat for
> informally calling it Postres .. the "formal" name is PostgreSQL ..
> nothing stop's ppl from using Postgres in 'conversation' though ... I
> personaly use PgSQL more often then not, since I find ppl seem to be able

I think that is because PgSQL is a full acronym, rather than a mixed
word/acronym combination, though actually if Pg were a word, they would
say pu-gu-SQL. The 'my' in MySQL is a word so they say it that way.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Had we capitalized the name like "PostgresQL" maybe the correct
> > pronunciation would be more obvious.
> ^^^^
>
> Remove this word and you'd be dead on. Perhaps the simplest resolution is
> to do just this.

What we really need then is Postgres-Q-L.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit because it is so
> > close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.
>
> ... and a M$ trademark violation suit, just waiting to happen whenever
> M$ decides we are big enough to be a threat.
>
> Stay far far away from any name including "SQL Server".
>
> (I still like plain "Postgres" though.)

Here in Russia, most people use "Postgres".

>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>

Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> What we really need then is Postgres-Q-L.

That, or PostgreS-Q-L would both make clear the pronounciation and retain
the differentiation from the former Postgres. Businesses change names and
logos quite successfully. No reason not to make such a change if it resolves
everyone's concerns.

Rich

Dr. Richard B. Shepard, President

Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM)
2404 SW 22nd Street | Troutdale, OR 97060-1247 | U.S.A.
+ 1 503-667-4517 (voice) | + 1 503-667-8863 (fax) | rshepard(at)appl-ecosys(dot)com
http://www.appl-ecosys.com

On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 02:30:17PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > > The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit because it is so
> > > > close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.
> > >
> > > ... and a M$ trademark violation suit, just waiting to happen whenever
> > > M$ decides we are big enough to be a threat.
> > >
> > > Stay far far away from any name including "SQL Server".
> > >
> > > (I still like plain "Postgres" though.)
> >
> > Nobody to date, I don't believe, has jumped down ppls throat for
> > informally calling it Postres .. the "formal" name is PostgreSQL ..
> > nothing stop's ppl from using Postgres in 'conversation' though ... I
> > personaly use PgSQL more often then not, since I find ppl seem to be able
>
> I think that is because PgSQL is a full acronym, rather than a mixed
> word/acronym combination, though actually if Pg were a word, they would
> say pu-gu-SQL. The 'my' in MySQL is a word so they say it that way.

I often hear it pronounced Pig-Squeal, which is memorable, but may not
give the right impression.

Cheers,
Steve

Hi,

> I didn't write it correctly. He said "Postgray" I think or "Postgree".
> Both made me feel a little ill. The strange thing is that until
> PostgreSQL got popular, no one really said the word, we just wrote it,
> and my editor has a "PostgreSQL" string macro so I don't even type it
> anymore, but when you start to talk to people, it does become a problem.
>
> The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit because it is so
> close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.

Is this under discussion? I do think that "PostgreSQL" is a good
name but does cause a lot of confusion. I usually call it just "Postgres".
I don't see the necessity of having "SQL" in it's name, although "Postgres
SQL" is also interesting.

[]'s
Ricardo.

Maybe not so obvious when people start asking what this "QL"
means. ;-)

[]'s
Ricardo.

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> > I think the problem is that PostgreSQL is both a name and an acronym,
> > mixed into single word. Postgres is a name, SQL is an acronym,
> > PostgreSQL is both. That is where people get confused.
>
> The problem is that the typography makes it look like the split should
> be "Postgre / SQL". I can see exactly why people think the name portion
> is "Postgre" --- it's not at all apparent that the "S" is part of both
> parts of the word, until you've been told.
>
> Had we capitalized the name like "PostgresQL" maybe the correct
> pronunciation would be more obvious.
>
> regards, tom lane

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit because it is so
> > close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.
>
> ... and a M$ trademark violation suit, just waiting to happen whenever
> M$ decides we are big enough to be a threat.
>
> Stay far far away from any name including "SQL Server".

Then we just leave out the 'Server' :-)

> (I still like plain "Postgres" though.)

If you make it 'Postgres SQL' you have it all. Sure, everybody will call it
'Postgres' (like a lot of them do now). But you still have the 'PostgreSQL'
feeling...

Just my feeling though...
Sander

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Ricardo Junior wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Had we capitalized the name like "PostgresQL" maybe the correct
> > pronunciation would be more obvious.
>
> Maybe not so obvious when people start asking what this "QL"
> means. ;-)

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.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC

Hi Tom:

> You could make a fair argument that the upcoming 7.3 ought to be
> called 8.0, because the addition of schema support will break an
> awful lot of client-side code ;-). But I doubt we will do that.

Hmm. As it happens, I've written an awful lot of client-side code. Can you
elaborate on what will break, or point me to a resource that lays it out?

-- sgl

=======================================================
Steve Lane

Vice President
Chris Moyer Consulting, Inc.
833 West Chicago Ave Suite 203

Voice: (312) 433-2421 Email: slane(at)fmpro(dot)com
Fax: (312) 850-3930 Web: http://www.fmpro.com
=======================================================

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> > I've heard a number of people opine that we should go back to just plain
> > 'Postgres', which is pronounceable by the uninitiate, and besides which
>
> I can never figure this out ... what is so difficult about 'Postgres-Q-L'?

Nothing. We even have audio files on the website so there is no question
on how to pronounce it. Some folks just aren't happy unless they can
change what doesn't need changing is all. I guess it's their way of
contributing.

Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

Steve Lane <slane(at)fmpro(dot)com> writes:
>> You could make a fair argument that the upcoming 7.3 ought to be
>> called 8.0, because the addition of schema support will break an
>> awful lot of client-side code ;-). But I doubt we will do that.

> Hmm. As it happens, I've written an awful lot of client-side code. Can you
> elaborate on what will break, or point me to a resource that lays it out?

Anything that looks at the system catalogs is likely to have some
trouble; the notion that there is at most one pg_class row named 'foo',
for example, will fall down.

regards, tom lane

From someone whose DSN used to look like: PostgreSQL

I can tell you that P O S T G R E S Q L means *nothing* to people who are
new to it. However, one can clearly see SQL at the end, and recognise that
as a valid acronym, so assume that the prefix, and hence the product
identifier, is POSTGRE

That's where even educated people (perhaps even ESPECIALLY educated people)
get the idea.

Terry Fielder
Network Engineer
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(at)greatgulfhomes(dot)com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of
> Sander Steffann
> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 6:44 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian; Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: Tom Lane; Andrew Sullivan; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] I am being interviewed by OReilly
>
>
> > Beats me, but when the Addison-Wesley publisher called to talk to me
> > about doing a book, he called is Postgre. I knew we were
> in trouble.
>
> I know someone who does that too (even after telling him it
> is NOT Postgre a
> LOT of times)... I just don't know where people get that idea!
>
> Sander.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > > The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit because it is so
> > > > close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.
> > >
> > > ... and a M$ trademark violation suit, just waiting to happen whenever
> > > M$ decides we are big enough to be a threat.
> > >
> > > Stay far far away from any name including "SQL Server".
> > >
> > > (I still like plain "Postgres" though.)
> >
> > Nobody to date, I don't believe, has jumped down ppls throat for
> > informally calling it Postres .. the "formal" name is PostgreSQL ..
> > nothing stop's ppl from using Postgres in 'conversation' though ... I
> > personaly use PgSQL more often then not, since I find ppl seem to be able
>
> I think that is because PgSQL is a full acronym, rather than a mixed
> word/acronym combination, though actually if Pg were a word, they would
> say pu-gu-SQL. The 'my' in MySQL is a word so they say it that way.

Wouldn't that be "PiggySeeQuel" ?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

Marc G. Fournier:

> I can never figure this out ... what is so difficult about 'Postgres-Q-L'?

http://www.postgresql.org/

"Ever wonder how PostgreSQL is really pronounced?"

;-)