Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.

[Selena Deckelmann <sdeckelmann(at)chrisking(dot)com>]

On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> - --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:11:34 -0700 Selena Deckelmann
> <sdeckelmann(at)chrisking(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I was just talking with one of my developers (Alexey) and he  
> > > said, why
> > > not just use Pg. Which is an interesting point. Consider that
> > > Volkswagen
> > > is properly known as Volkswagen but commonly (and most of the time)
> > > referred to as VW.
> > >
> > > Why don't we just stop this whole PostgreSQL->Postgres->Postgre
> > > junk and
> > > just say, PostgreSQL, also referred to as PG.
> > >
> > > Heck, I know plenty of people that just say PG, or PGSQL, myself
> > > included.
> >
> > +1 I like it.
> >
> >  From a design standpoint, 'Pg' is nicer. I know we're not there  
> > yet, but
> > just sayin'.
>
> Just to clarify, I don't believe JD is advocating *changing the  
> name* to Pg,
> only using Pg as the common name vs Postgres ...
>
> Right JD? :)

And I didn't mean to imply a whole name change.  Only that 'Pg' is  
easier on the eyes than 'PG'.

-selena

--
Selena Deckelmann
Information Systems Manager
Chris King Precision Components
Made in Portland, Oregon
www.chrisking.com / 503.972.4050 x230