The name of the game (was Re: postgre linkage with non-postgre db)

Hello,

Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db?
For example, can i link mysql db over odbc connection to postgre
database? So, i will be able to use queries in PG like select * from
table1, where table1 is from mysql db.

Thanks.

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:39:05PM +0300, Petronenko D.S. wrote:
> Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db?

The name is PostgreSQL or Postgres, not postgre.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html#item1.1

> For example, can i link mysql db over odbc connection to postgre
> database? So, i will be able to use queries in PG like select * from
> table1, where table1 is from mysql db.

If you have Perl installed then you can do this with dbi-link or
by writing your own PL/PerlU function that uses DBI. You could
create a view to hide the function call, although a limitation of
doing so is that WHERE restrictions would be applied after fetching
the entire result set, which would be inefficient if you want only
a few rows from a large table.

http://pgfoundry.org/projects/dbi-link/

--
Michael Fuhr

> Hello,
>
> Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db?
> For example, can i link mysql db over odbc connection to postgre
> database? So, i will be able to use queries in PG like select * from
> table1, where table1 is from mysql db.
>
> Thanks.

I think that this thread on the mailing list might be of some help.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-06/msg01207.php

Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.

> Hello,
>
> Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db?
> For example, can i link mysql db over odbc
> connection to postgre
> database? So, i will be able to use queries in PG
> like select * from
> table1, where table1 is from mysql db.
>
> Thanks.
>

isn't this the job of the application?

i use php's adodb's db abstraction layer and this kind
of think s/b trivial.

you need the connection information for both
databases, of course.

you just make a call to a db and pass all the
connection information. of course, the syntax of the
call and the connection information will be different
(some could be the same, like password, but you know
what i mean).

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

On 7/12/06 12:39 PM, "Petronenko D.S." <petronenko(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db?
> For example, can i link mysql db over odbc connection to postgre
> database? So, i will be able to use queries in PG like select * from
> table1, where table1 is from mysql db.

See DBI-Link:

http://pgfoundry.org/projects/dbi-link/

Sean

Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:39:05PM +0300, Petronenko D.S. wrote:
>> Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db?

> The name is PostgreSQL or Postgres, not postgre.

It might help to explain that the pronunciation is "post-gres" or
"post-gres-cue-ell", not "post-gray-something".

I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this
past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference :-( Arguably,
the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to
plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made.
It seems far too late to change now, though.

regards, tom lane

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:42:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:39:05PM +0300, Petronenko D.S. wrote:
> >> Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db?
>
> > The name is PostgreSQL or Postgres, not postgre.
>
> It might help to explain that the pronunciation is "post-gres" or
> "post-gres-cue-ell", not "post-gray-something".

The FAQ link I included gives the correct pronunciation and has an
MP3 of somebody saying it; I suppose I could have quoted the FAQ
item in addition to posting the link.

> I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this
> past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference :-( Arguably,
> the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to
> plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made.
> It seems far too late to change now, though.

Too bad :-(

--
Michael Fuhr

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

> I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this
> past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference :-( Arguably,
> the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to
> plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made.
> It seems far too late to change now, though.

Not at all. For a start, the project can make it clear that "Postgres"
is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "PostgreSQL", and switch
from encouraging Postgres instead of PostgreSQL, while keeping the
ugly one around as a perpetual synonym. The fact that it is still
causing problems ten years later indicates that this is not a problem
that is going away easily. Practically everyone already calls it
Postgres anyway, even among those of us who can pronounce it
correctly. :) Why not bite the bullet at the ten-year mark and change
to the correct name? Otherwise, Tom may post an email in 2016 about
how the 1996 decision was still the single worst mistake the project
has ever made in the last 20 years...

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607130200
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFEtecHvJuQZxSWSsgRAqLPAKC3JrDFG5hikZg12QCuRdMnuxQChACg1AOT
HDqgKNa5GA0gPo45YUBtlcg=
=x7DT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tom Lane wrote:
> Arguably,
> the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to
> plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made.
> It seems far too late to change now, though.

How can it be too late? If Borland/Inprise/Borland can do it
and if AT&T/SBC/AT&T can do it, couldn't this project do it too?

I think most of us are all too familiar wasting time explaining
"Postgre S.Q.L." that most newbies assume. And it's hard to blame
them. Ask any kid learning to read how PostgreSQL is pronounced and
they won't group the "S" with the "gre" either. If we really want
people to pronounce it "post-gres-cue-ell" at least change the
capitalization to "PostgresQL".

But surely it'd be a better idea for everyone if for 8.2 or 9.0
or whatever if the project formally made Postgres not only an
acceptable but a preferred name for the project, wouldn't it?

On 7/13/06, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> wrote:

> > I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this
> > past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference
> Too bad :-(
Probably stems from the common misconception that
SQL should be pronounced as See-quell, hence
postgreh-See-Quell, or postgreh if you don't feel like
saying see-quell...

:}

Cheers,
Andrej

Still watching advocacy list and want to tell you that I very much
appreciate this discussion.

Ron Mayer wrote:
> How can it be too late? If Borland/Inprise/Borland can do it
> and if AT&T/SBC/AT&T can do it, couldn't this project do it too?
Yes. In way of reverting back to an earlier name makes me by far less
headache like changing to a completely different new name.
This is especially because many people - at least here in Germany -
still use "Postgres" because they don't want to discrace themselves by
pronouncing PostgreSQL wrongly. I like the message the 'SQL' carries,
however most people, that know what SQL is and respect it, do know about
the strong SQL compliance of PostgreSQL.

Last not least, it would be like taking a bow toward the history of this
great project.
>
> But surely it'd be a better idea for everyone if for 8.2 or 9.0
> or whatever if the project formally made Postgres not only an
> acceptable but a preferred name for the project, wouldn't it?
I appreciate your suggestion. Even if we would not do a big hoopla on
the name reverting.

Well, due to some expierence with changing name of software: Will there
be any implication in source-code, installation procedures or running
production systems?

Anastasios

> Not at all. For a start, the project can make it clear that "Postgres"
> is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "PostgreSQL", and switch
> from encouraging Postgres instead of PostgreSQL, while keeping the
> ugly one around as a perpetual synonym. The fact that it is still
> causing problems ten years later indicates that this is not a problem
> that is going away easily. Practically everyone already calls it
> Postgres anyway, even among those of us who can pronounce it
> correctly. :) Why not bite the bullet at the ten-year mark and change
> to the correct name? Otherwise, Tom may post an email in 2016 about
> how the 1996 decision was still the single worst mistake the project
> has ever made in the last 20 years...

Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
with PostgreSQL:

Cons for PostgreSQL:
(Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)

1. Long domain name
2. PostgreSQL, Inc. and the perception that "they" are postgresql
(although that is very minute these days.) I do still run into it.
3. Difficult to say
4. PostgreSQL.Org is registered to Hub not the development group
5. Changing the name will likely alienate a long time member and co0-founder

Pros for PostgreSQL:

1. The press knows us as that
2. Everyone complains about the name, but everyone knows it
3. It has been that way for 10 years
4. Everyone calls it postgres anyway, so who cares?

Problems with Postgres:

1. Postgresintl.com (Dave Cramer)
2. Postgresinc.com (CMD)
3. PervasivePostgres.com (Pervasive)

Pros for Postgres:

1. Short domain name
2. Goes back to our roots (kind of)
3. Easier to say
4. Domain name is registered to the development group

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> - --
> Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
> End Point Corporation
> PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607130200
> http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iD8DBQFEtecHvJuQZxSWSsgRAqLPAKC3JrDFG5hikZg12QCuRdMnuxQChACg1AOT
> HDqgKNa5GA0gPo45YUBtlcg=
> =x7DT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Tom Lane wrote:

> Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:39:05PM +0300, Petronenko D.S. wrote:
>>> Can i get data in postgre from non-postgre db?
>
>> The name is PostgreSQL or Postgres, not postgre.
>
> It might help to explain that the pronunciation is "post-gres" or
> "post-gres-cue-ell", not "post-gray-something".
>
> I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this
> past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference :-( Arguably,
> the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to
> plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made.
> It seems far too late to change now, though.

Since alot of ppl tend to be using Postgres, I kinda see PostgreSQL as the
'formal, written word' while Postgres is the 'informal, spoken word' ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
> with PostgreSQL:
>
> Cons for PostgreSQL:
> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
>
> 1. Long domain name

It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring

> 2. PostgreSQL, Inc. and the perception that "they" are postgresql
> (although that is very minute these days.) I do still run into it.
> 3. Difficult to say
> 4. PostgreSQL.Org is registered to Hub not the development group
> 5. Changing the name will likely alienate a long time member and
> co0-founder
>
> Pros for PostgreSQL:
>
> 1. The press knows us as that
> 2. Everyone complains about the name, but everyone knows it
> 3. It has been that way for 10 years
> 4. Everyone calls it postgres anyway, so who cares?

There are a lot of items like graphics/documentation/code that we have aquired
over the years that all refer to PostgreSQL. These would all need to be
modified.

>
> Problems with Postgres:
>
> 1. Postgresintl.com (Dave Cramer)
> 2. Postgresinc.com (CMD)
> 3. PervasivePostgres.com (Pervasive)
>

There would be added confusion, as many software packages would now have to
say "works with postgres and postgresql"

> Pros for Postgres:
>
> 1. Short domain name

2 fewer charactors? again... not valid.

> 2. Goes back to our roots (kind of)
> 3. Easier to say
> 4. Domain name is registered to the development group
>

Not exactly. The .org domain is registered, but .net and maybe .us or .info
are registered to complete 3rd parties, who aiui are not exactly willing to
transfer those domain names to the project.

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

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
>> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
>> with PostgreSQL:
>>
>> Cons for PostgreSQL:
>> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
>>
>> 1. Long domain name
>
> It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring

Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view.

Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit?
ME: WWW.postgresql.org
Customer: What?
Me: www.postgres --- ql.org
Customer: Why the ql?

And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is
difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being
longer is relevant.

>> 2. PostgreSQL, Inc. and the perception that "they" are postgresql
>> (although that is very minute these days.) I do still run into it.
>> 3. Difficult to say
>> 4. PostgreSQL.Org is registered to Hub not the development group
>> 5. Changing the name will likely alienate a long time member and
>> co0-founder
>>
>> Pros for PostgreSQL:
>>
>> 1. The press knows us as that
>> 2. Everyone complains about the name, but everyone knows it
>> 3. It has been that way for 10 years
>> 4. Everyone calls it postgres anyway, so who cares?
>
> There are a lot of items like graphics/documentation/code that we have aquired
> over the years that all refer to PostgreSQL. These would all need to be
> modified.

Very good point!

>
>> Problems with Postgres:
>>
>> 1. Postgresintl.com (Dave Cramer)
>> 2. Postgresinc.com (CMD)
>> 3. PervasivePostgres.com (Pervasive)
>>
>
> There would be added confusion, as many software packages would now have to
> say "works with postgres and postgresql"

Yep.

>
>> Pros for Postgres:
>>
>> 1. Short domain name
>
> 2 fewer charactors? again... not valid.

I don't agree but that's ok :)

>
>> 2. Goes back to our roots (kind of)
>> 3. Easier to say
>> 4. Domain name is registered to the development group
>>
>
> Not exactly. The .org domain is registered, but .net and maybe .us or .info
> are registered to complete 3rd parties, who aiui are not exactly willing to
> transfer those domain names to the project.

Well frankly, for .us and info who the heck cares. I have yet to go to a
website (except for slony.info) that is a .info by choice.

.Us? Again so what.

.Net - well it does point www.postgresql.org, so he may not be
completely unwilling.

FYI postgresql.xxx suffers from similar problems with .info and .us

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

> >> Cons for PostgreSQL:
> >> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
> >>
> >> 1. Long domain name
> >
> > It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring
>
> Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view.
>
> Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit?
> ME: WWW.postgresql.org
> Customer: What?
> Me: www.postgres --- ql.org
> Customer: Why the ql?
>
> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is
> spelled is difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus
> the domain name being longer is relevant.

I don't see the relevance of the domainname at all. I type in
"postgres.org" and it redirects to "postgresql.org". If the names were
reversed, I would assume "postgresql.org" would be redirecting to
"postgres.org". (Same could - and should - of course go for .anything,
assuming we have access to the domain)

So tell your customer whatever seems easiest (yes, that's most likely
postgres - that would be even easier than pgsql.org, if we had it, since
it's easily pronouncable) and let's have a computer deal with sorting
that part out.

//Magnus

>
> So tell your customer whatever seems easiest (yes, that's most likely
> postgres - that would be even easier than pgsql.org, if we had it, since
> it's easily pronouncable) and let's have a computer deal with sorting
> that part out.

Great then I get to explain why postgres is postgresql but not pgsql...

Meh :).

I get your point. My point is that it does matter from a normal user
point of view.

Is it a huge deal? Of course not, but it is also not a red-herring.
There is a cost associated.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> //Magnus
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> FYI postgresql.xxx suffers from similar problems with .info and .us

Well, postgresql.xxx suffers from the problem that ICANN turned down
the application for that TLD...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xxx>

:-)
--
output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/
Rules of the Evil Overlord #137. "Before spending available funds on
giant gargoyles, gothic arches, or other cosmetically intimidating
pieces of architecture, I will see if there are any valid military
expenditures that could use the extra budget."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
>> So tell your customer whatever seems easiest (yes, that's most likely
>> postgres - that would be even easier than pgsql.org, if we had it, since
>> it's easily pronouncable) and let's have a computer deal with sorting
>> that part out.
>
> Great then I get to explain why postgres is postgresql but not pgsql...

I somewhat favor the approach of indicating that it's a "silent Q" :-).

<http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/TheBookshopSketch>

...
C: I wonder if you might have a copy of "Rarnaby Budge"?
P: No, as I say, we're right out of Edmund Wells!
C: No, not Edmund Wells - Charles Dikkens.
P: (pause - eagerly) Charles Dickens??
C: Yes.
P: (excitedly) You mean "Barnaby Rudge"!
C: No, "Rarnaby Budge" by Charles Dikkens. That's Dikkens with two Ks, the
well-known Dutch author.
P: (slight pause) No, well we don't have "Rarnaby Budge" by Charles Dikkens
with two Ks, the well-known Dutch author, and perhaps to save time I
should add that we don't have "Karnaby Fudge" by Darles Chickens, or
"Farmer of Sludge" by Marles Pickens, or even "Stickwick Stapers" by Farles
Wickens with four M's and a silent Q!!!!! Why don't you try W. H. Smith's?
C: Ah did, They sent me here.
P: DID they.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/sgml.html
--Despite Pending :Alarm--

On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:22, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
> >> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
> >> with PostgreSQL:
> >>
> >> Cons for PostgreSQL:
> >> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
> >>
> >> 1. Long domain name
> >
> > It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring
>
> Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view.
>
> Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit?
> ME: WWW.postgresql.org
> Customer: What?
> Me: www.postgres --- ql.org
> Customer: Why the ql?
>
> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is
> difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being
> longer is relevant.
>

let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-)

the length of the world <> the difficulty in pronouncing the word. You've
listed it being difficult to say in #3 (and you'll note I didn't argue with
you), so I don't see that as valid justification for #1.

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

>>
>> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is
>> difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being
>> longer is relevant.
>>
>
> let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-)

Are you making my argument to switch to postgresinc.com for me?

Believe me, our name causing an undue amount of grief for us as well :).
Guess how many times I get to say:

My email address is jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, you know like a command prompt
on your computer?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Thursday 13. July 2006 21:38, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled
>>> is difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name
>>> being longer is relevant.
>>
>> let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters?
>> :-)
>
>Are you making my argument to switch to postgresinc.com for me?
>
>Believe me, our name causing an undue amount of grief for us as well
> :). Guess how many times I get to say:
>
>My email address is jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, you know like a command
> prompt on your computer?

Windows user:

"What's a command prompt?"
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009
http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE

> > >> Cons for PostgreSQL:

A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-)

--- Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:

> > > >> Cons for PostgreSQL:
>
> A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-)

wow, i never knew there was so much name tension built
up. ;-)

i could see how it would be a pain to explain it over
the phone, though.

"like 'postgres" with a 'ql' on the end. get it? it
ends in SQL."

i wonder if someone would pick up on it if explained
like above.

i do remember jacking the name up but good when i firt
started, but it didn't take long to get it straight
and then it was a non issue. i guess i'm one of the
few folks who natively thinks of it as postresql - i
rarely use postgres. if ever. i'll use pgsql before postgres.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:22, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>> It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring
>>
>> Me: www.postgres --- ql.org
>> Customer: Why the ql?
>
> let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-)

Nice example. One distinction is that they don't spell
CommandPrompt
CommAndProMPT
If they did, and then got into arguments with customers who (not
unreasonably) call their company "Come and Pro MPT" it'd probably
hurt their organization.

So long the spelling is PostgreSQL and the pronunciation is anything
other than "Postgre something" confusion will result. If the
spelling were changed to PostgresQL people will say "postgres q l".
If the spelling were changed to PosTgresQL we'd have flamewars about
"P.O.S. Tigress" being a common pronunciation.

I still think moving to Postgres would be the best for everyone;
but if people like the QL, how about changing the capitalization
to suggest the desired pronunciation or changing the pronunciation
what the current spelling suggests. Note that FORTRAN successfully
switched to Fortran in '90; so there's precedent for that working.

> "like 'postgres" with a 'ql' on the end. get it? it
> ends in SQL."
>
> i wonder if someone would pick up on it if explained
> like above.

Yes. In my case, I learned of PostgreSQL after learning of its long distant realitive - Ingres.
Where Ingres' base name with used to to produce <In|Post>gres. And then came Postgres95. And
then came PostgreSQL.

I suppose that if one understands the history that led to "PostgreSQL" then it becomes reasonable
to pronounce it as Post-gres-QL.

http://www.postgresql.org/about/history

Regards,

Richard Broersma Jr.

Hi,

On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 14:10 -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Since alot of ppl tend to be using Postgres, I kinda see PostgreSQL as
> the 'formal, written word' while Postgres is the 'informal, spoken
> word' ...

That's exactly what I also think about this subject. Personally I don't
find this practical to change the name after 10 years or so.

As Tom wrote, many of the people at the conference mispronounced
PostgreSQL (SQL as the SQL Server of M$). Recalling the reason for
replacing "95" instead of "SQL", the reason did not change (SQL
compilance) and if we drop it again,people might say "Oh, did you drop
SQL compilance?"

And another thing: "I think" we have much work to do instead of
suggesting name changes and spending our valuable times on this...

0.02 cents.

Regards,
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Robert Treat wrote:
>> On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
>>> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
>>> with PostgreSQL:
>>>
>>> Cons for PostgreSQL:
>>> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
>>>
>>> 1. Long domain name
>>
>> It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring
>
> Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view.
>
> Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit?
> ME: WWW.postgresql.org
> Customer: What?
> Me: www.postgres --- ql.org
> Customer: Why the ql?
>
> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is
> difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being longer
> is relevant.

Just as an aside ... http://www.postgres.org will work, and gets them to
the proper site too ... where we've been able to, we've made sure that
both could be used ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>>
>> So tell your customer whatever seems easiest (yes, that's most likely
>> postgres - that would be even easier than pgsql.org, if we had it, since
>> it's easily pronouncable) and let's have a computer deal with sorting
>> that part out.
>
> Great then I get to explain why postgres is postgresql but not pgsql...

Sorry, I don't own pgsql.org, else I'd point it to postgresql.org :( Some
gy in KZ(?) owns it ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>>>
>>> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is
>>> difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being
>>> longer is relevant.
>>>
>>
>> let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-)
>
> Are you making my argument to switch to postgresinc.com for me?
>
> Believe me, our name causing an undue amount of grief for us as well :).
> Guess how many times I get to say:
>
> My email address is jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, you know like a command prompt on
> your computer?

I think your domainname is cool myself ... *shrug* How much more
"computerese" can you get? :)

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664

Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
> > > >> Cons for PostgreSQL:
>
> A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-)

I was actually thinking Postgres-QL.

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

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

> > A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-)
>
> I was actually thinking Postgres-QL.

Even better.

Regards,

Richard Broersma Jr.

> I was actually thinking Postgres-QL.

How about Postgrezzque'el ?

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Josh Berkus wrote:
> How about Postgrezzque'el ?

Gesundheit!

>> I was actually thinking Postgres-QL.
>
> How about Postgrezzque'el ?

We gotta be cooler, more hip hop:

Postshizzle

On 7/13/06, Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >> Cons for PostgreSQL:
> A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-)
Or even better: PostgresSQL. People would not be tempted to eat
"s" in postgres, and we'd retaing the SQL part. ;)

Cons: one more letter, oh and domain is registered too...

Regards,
Dawid

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>> I was actually thinking Postgres-QL.
>> How about Postgrezzque'el ?
>
> We gotta be cooler, more hip hop:
>
> Postshizzle

That almost made the disaster that has become my trip back to Austin
from OSCon worthwhile. :)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461