Using Postgres as an alias

In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
"PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be done
with the FAQ.

Objections?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 06:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be done
> with the FAQ.

+1

I really like it (I think I have actually always expressed my favours for
it).

Actually, I believe that in the next promotional material that the Italian
community will produce, we will clearly state something like: "PostgreSQL,
or simply Postgres, is ..." . And we could use this 'message' whenever
suitable in conferences, workshops, webpages, etc.

Ciao,
Gabriele

2007/9/26, Robert Bernier <robert(dot)bernier5(at)sympatico(dot)ca>:
>
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 06:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> > one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be
> done
> > with the FAQ.
>
> +1
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>

I also like the direction it sets, and the slow, easy way it begins the
migration process.

Andy

On 9/26/07 7:45 AM, "Gabriele Bartolini" <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> I really like it (I think I have actually always expressed my favours for it).
>
> Actually, I believe that in the next promotional material that the Italian
> community will produce, we will clearly state something like: "PostgreSQL, or
> simply Postgres, is ..." . And we could use this 'message' whenever suitable
> in conferences, workshops, webpages, etc.
>
> Ciao,
> Gabriele
>
> 2007/9/26, Robert Bernier <robert(dot)bernier5(at)sympatico(dot)ca>:
>> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 06:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>>> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
>>> > one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be done
>>> > with the FAQ.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>>
>

Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
> I really like it (I think I have actually always expressed my favours
> for it).
>
> Actually, I believe that in the next promotional material that the
> Italian community will produce, we will clearly state something like:
> "PostgreSQL, or simply Postgres, is ..." . And we could use this
> 'message' whenever suitable in conferences, workshops, webpages, etc.

Sounds good - I think I'll follow Bruce's lead in the pgAdmin docs.

In the app itself, should we change all instances to Postgres do you think?

Regards Dave

Hi Andy,

I would like to clarify though that my opinions are generic, not thinking
of a name change whatsoever. Whether we will eventually change the name or
not, this process is good for PostgreSQL.

The real process of name change IMHO is another separate topic which
requires planning and time (maybe this is task 0 of that process). :)

Ciao,
Gabriele

2007/9/26, Andy Astor <andy(dot)astor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>:
>
> I also like the direction it sets, and the slow, easy way it begins the
> migration process.
>
> Andy
>
>
> On 9/26/07 7:45 AM, "Gabriele Bartolini" <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> I really like it (I think I have actually always expressed my favours for
> it).
>
> Actually, I believe that in the next promotional material that the Italian
> community will produce, we will clearly state something like: "PostgreSQL,
> or simply Postgres, is ..." . And we could use this 'message' whenever
> suitable in conferences, workshops, webpages, etc.
>
> Ciao,
> Gabriele
>
> 2007/9/26, Robert Bernier <robert(dot)bernier5(at)sympatico(dot)ca>:
>
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 06:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> > one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be
> done
> > with the FAQ.
>
> +1
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
>
>
>

Hi,

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 06:11 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same
> could be done with the FAQ.
>
> Objections?

I still cannot understand why we spend our energy on such a thing.

I strongly object. I don't want to see Postgres in any of our
documentation.

As the lead RPM packager, I will *never* ever rename PostgreSQL to
Postgres in any of my packages, documentation, etc. unless we change our
official name someday (which I hope it won't happen any time)

From my point of view, I cannot spend time to rename the packages from
postgresql to postgres (I cannot think about the upgrade problems...)

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

Hi Dave,

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 12:53 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> In the app itself, should we change all instances to Postgres do you
> think?

So you want to use the alias instead of real name? Interesting.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 12:53 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> In the app itself, should we change all instances to Postgres do you
>> think?
>
> So you want to use the alias instead of real name? Interesting.

Yes, because it's easier to write and pronounce. I don't see it as being
any difference from you calling me Dave, or having aliased 'rm -rf' to
'rm' :-) The whole point of having the alias is to use it.

/D

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 08:23, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> From my point of view, I cannot spend time to rename the packages from
> postgresql to postgres (I cannot think about the upgrade problems...)

Sure why not, sounds fair to me.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be done
> with the FAQ.
>
> Objections?
>

It is a complete and utter waste of time. Don't you have enough to focus
on than worrying about this?

Joshua D. Drake

- --

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG+n/HATb/zqfZUUQRAr0EAJ9wn+ARkkR2akLMvXY4A024XTyFkQCbBKKf
F0lvuh7FJVzMHeHDWeeeZzA=
=hXQ7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Devrim,

> I still cannot understand why we spend our energy on such a thing.

I completely agree with you.

However if some people have difficulties to pronounce 'PostgreSQL',
I will accept an alias in documents, 'PostgreSQL also known as Postgres'.

It is acceptable for me.

2007/9/26, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 06:11 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same
> > could be done with the FAQ.
> >
> > Objections?
>
> I still cannot understand why we spend our energy on such a thing.
>
> I strongly object. I don't want to see Postgres in any of our
> documentation.
>
> As the lead RPM packager, I will *never* ever rename PostgreSQL to
> Postgres in any of my packages, documentation, etc. unless we change our
> official name someday (which I hope it won't happen any time)
>
> From my point of view, I cannot spend time to rename the packages from
> postgresql to postgres (I cannot think about the upgrade problems...)
>
> Regards,
> --
> Devrim GÜNDÜZ
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
> Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
> Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
>
>
>
>

--
NAGAYASU Satoshi <snaga(at)snaga(dot)org>

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 06:11:52AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same
> could be done with the FAQ.
>
> Objections?

+1 :)

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:33:38AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 06:11:52AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same
> > could be done with the FAQ.
> >
> > Objections?
>
> +1 :)

Oops. That's +1 for making the change :)

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.

I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
our differences about product naming. Technical documentation is the
last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent. If you
want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 12:43, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>
> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
> our differences about product naming. Technical documentation is the
> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent. If you
> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.

+1

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} Postgre

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be done
> with the FAQ.
>
> Objections?
>

Joshua Drake responded:
> It is a complete and utter waste of time. Don't you have enough to
> focus on than worrying about this?

While I somewhat agree with Peter's later point, why this response?
Bruce's time is his to do with as he sees fit. This is a volunteer project.
Obviously this issue is important to Bruce.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200709261325
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFG+pZbvJuQZxSWSsgRA0OxAJ9QgJNasE62OErPwZj9uqmEvU6pcQCfQyKb
c38CR4DLUOEkDx6i2zbgoyQ=
=bwiT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
>> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be done
>> with the FAQ.
>
>> Objections?
>
>
> Joshua Drake responded:
>> It is a complete and utter waste of time. Don't you have enough to
>> focus on than worrying about this?
>
> While I somewhat agree with Peter's later point, why this response?
> Bruce's time is his to do with as he sees fit. This is a volunteer project.
> Obviously this issue is important to Bruce.

Granted my response was harsh, likely due to the incessant and
ridiculous thread of changing the name in the first place.

Bruce was just simply asking what people thought. I responded fiercely,
in that I think it is a complete and utter waste of time.

However, it is his time.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Draek

>
>

- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

- --

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG+piMATb/zqfZUUQRAoySAJ9Zyd78UcRez+v55QLU/MKsnIyO3ACfXN2B
bBEkX3NdJbUIV41crmfpKoE=
=XgAa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi,

Personally I find this entire effort quite irrelevant in the grand
scheme of things. So I would just say, who ever feels passionate about
making the switch should go ahead. But if they do they should follow
through with this including all the work (and legal juggling with
domains) necessary. If there is anything they cannot do themselves, they
better do something really nice to the person who has to do it in their
place (like renaming RPM's). Oh and they better do it right :)

I am starting to forget if this list had any other topics besides name
changing ;)

regards,
Lukas

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>
> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
> our differences about product naming. Technical documentation is the
> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent. If you
> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.

If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
propose we do that? I suggested the documentation and FAQ. Do you have
a better idea?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
>>> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
>> our differences about product naming. Technical documentation is the
>> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent. If you
>> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.
>
> If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> propose we do that? I suggested the documentation and FAQ. Do you have
> a better idea?

I believe the FAQ is sufficient.

Joshua D. Drake

- --

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG+qS/ATb/zqfZUUQRAvbvAJ4v8eI1lnny6qIssWHG0jg+0aHYmwCgkTiH
KI9gtgqlnhJysK72nSzEkIk=
=+CPc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> propose we do that?  I suggested the documentation and FAQ.  Do you
> have a better idea?

The fact that there is a disagreement about the name doesn't give us a
mandate to use both alternatives. As long as the official project and
product name is PostgreSQL, the material produced by the project should
use that name.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> >>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> >>> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
> >> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
> >> our differences about product naming. Technical documentation is the
> >> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent. If you
> >> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.
> >
> > If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> > propose we do that? I suggested the documentation and FAQ. Do you have
> > a better idea?
>
> I believe the FAQ is sufficient.

Because there seems to be agreement that the FAQ can use the alias I
have made that change and committed it. There were 7 changes in the
main FAQ and 3 in the development FAQ. You can see how you like it:

http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html

(Give time for the update to hit the web site.)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > >>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > >>> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
> > >> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
> > >> our differences about product naming. Technical documentation is the
> > >> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent. If you
> > >> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.
> > >
> > > If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> > > propose we do that? I suggested the documentation and FAQ. Do you have
> > > a better idea?
> >
> > I believe the FAQ is sufficient.
>
> Because there seems to be agreement that the FAQ can use the alias I
> have made that change and committed it. There were 7 changes in the
> main FAQ and 3 in the development FAQ. You can see how you like it:
>
> http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html
>
> (Give time for the update to hit the web site.)

FYI, the URL above at 'wwwmaster' is now updated with my changes.

(Should I change the URL hostname mentions to be www.postgresql.org
(lowercase) rather than www.PostgreSQL.org?)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> So you want to use the alias instead of real name? Interesting.

Nothing wrong with that. It's like how IBM uses "IBM" more
often than "International ..." in most everything they produce.

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
>> propose we do that? I suggested the documentation and FAQ. Do you
>> have a better idea?
>
> The fact that there is a disagreement about the name doesn't give us a
> mandate to use both alternatives. As long as the official project and
> product name is PostgreSQL, the material produced by the project should
> use that name.
>

It seems many organizations and products that have a long and cumbersome
name use a short-form in their documentation more often than not. Think
"J2EE" vs "Java 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition" or "SAP xRPM" who's
official name is "SAP® xApp™ Resource and Portfolio Management"

Hi,

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 15:05 -0700, Ron Mayer wrote:
> > So you want to use the alias instead of real name? Interesting.
>
> Nothing wrong with that. It's like how IBM uses "IBM" more
> often than "International ..." in most everything they produce.

Heh. We are not aliasing "Pxxxx Oxxxx Sxxxxx Txxxx Gxxxx Rxxx Exxxx
Sxxxx Qxxxx Lxxxx" ;) . Sure, IBM is better than its long form, but IMHO
is is not the same as PostgreSQL -> Postgres.

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

> FYI, the URL above at 'wwwmaster' is now updated with my changes.
>
> (Should I change the URL hostname mentions to be www.postgresql.org
> (lowercase) rather than www.PostgreSQL.org?)

Yes, please.

/Magnus

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be done
> with the FAQ.

FYI, now that I have updated the FAQs I will be back in 2-3 weeks to ask
again about doing the same in the main documentation. (See the FAQs for
examples of the output.) Again, if I get an overwhelming majority, I
will make the change. The doc changes are really only important if they
are done before the final 8.3 release so there is no rush.

So, no, this issue is not dead. And no, I am not doing this by fiat but
rather based on clear majority opinion in this group. Also, for those
opposed to a name change, making these changes makes making an official
name change _less_ likely.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > FYI, the URL above at 'wwwmaster' is now updated with my changes.
> >
> > (Should I change the URL hostname mentions to be www.postgresql.org
> > (lowercase) rather than www.PostgreSQL.org?)
>
> Yes, please.

Done.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
>> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be done
>> with the FAQ.
>
> FYI, now that I have updated the FAQs I will be back in 2-3 weeks to ask
> again about doing the same in the main documentation. (See the FAQs for
> examples of the output.) Again, if I get an overwhelming majority, I
> will make the change. The doc changes are really only important if they
> are done before the final 8.3 release so there is no rush.
>
> So, no, this issue is not dead. And no, I am not doing this by fiat but
> rather based on clear majority opinion in this group.

There has been zero clear majority.

Joshua D. Drake

- --

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG+9aoATb/zqfZUUQRAjzxAKCeAkCw9tFe6i6HLgddK5qKMd4PpQCdEl60
LWyuZet+U7ZTWgdJOqfX4YE=
=77g6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 9/26/2007 6:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same could be done
> with the FAQ.

If you are going to change all the documentation anyway, is there a
strong reason not to change it to Postgres all the way?

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 #

On 9/26/2007 2:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
>> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>>
>> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
>> our differences about product naming. Technical documentation is the
>> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent. If you
>> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.
>
> If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> propose we do that? I suggested the documentation and FAQ. Do you have
> a better idea?

Apparently nobody agrees at all yet. Interestingly, everyone has dropped
the *absolutely necessary* addition of *Postgre* to the accepted aliases
in case we are not committing to renaming to Postgres.

It is absolutely necessary because there is *no way* the people, who
oppose the name change, even remotely believe for themselves that this
abomination will ever go away by itself. And if they do, they are just
as ignorant as they claim the proponents of the name change would be.
Only that the two camps are ignorant of different things.

So is it okay now that we add Postgre to the list of accepted aliases?

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 #

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:33:38 -0700 David Fetter wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 06:11:52AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph. The same
> > could be done with the FAQ.
> >
> > Objections?
>
> +1 :)

-1

By the way, David: your last PWN does not even contain one "PostgreSQL"
at all in the text which is written by you. Imho Bruce mentioned something else.

Oh, and thanks for breaking my brand new translation script ;-)

Kind regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
(Ferenc Mantfeld)