Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: pgsql: Remove mention of the Berkeley origins of the alias "Postgres"

pgsql: Remove mention of the Berkeley origins of the alias "Postgres"

From
momjian@postgresql.org (Bruce Momjian)
Date:
Log Message:
-----------
Remove mention of the Berkeley origins of the alias "Postgres" ---
seems unnecessary to mention in the FAQ, per discussion on IRC.

Modified Files:
--------------
    pgsql/doc:
        FAQ (r1.452 -> r1.453)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/FAQ?r1=1.452&r2=1.453)
    pgsql/doc/src/FAQ:
        FAQ.html (r1.408 -> r1.409)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html?r1=1.408&r2=1.409)

Re: pgsql: Remove mention of the Berkeley origins of the alias "Postgres"

From
Tom Lane
Date:
momjian@postgresql.org (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> Remove mention of the Berkeley origins of the alias "Postgres" ---
> seems unnecessary to mention in the FAQ, per discussion on IRC.

This doesn't seem like an improvement in the least.  It makes it
appear that Postgres is just a randomly chosen abbreviation that
has no particular historical standing compared to, say, Postgre.
The previous text made it perfectly clear *why* that shortening
is preferred over others.

Why are such politically touchy decisions being taken in an anonymous,
unarchived forum like IRC, anyway?  Especially when what *was*
being publicly discussed was an entirely different change?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2008-04/msg00001.php

(Not that I like JD's proposed change better, but at least he
made it in a reasonably well-read forum.)

            regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Remove mention of the Berkeley origins of the alias "Postgres"

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Tom Lane wrote:
> momjian@postgresql.org (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> > Remove mention of the Berkeley origins of the alias "Postgres" ---
> > seems unnecessary to mention in the FAQ, per discussion on IRC.
>
> This doesn't seem like an improvement in the least.  It makes it
> appear that Postgres is just a randomly chosen abbreviation that
> has no particular historical standing compared to, say, Postgre.
> The previous text made it perfectly clear *why* that shortening
> is preferred over others.

OK, you the second person to say that so I re-added it.

> Why are such politically touchy decisions being taken in an anonymous,
> unarchived forum like IRC, anyway?  Especially when what *was*
> being publicly discussed was an entirely different change?
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2008-04/msg00001.php
>
> (Not that I like JD's proposed change better, but at least he
> made it in a reasonably well-read forum.)

I everything related to the alias politically charged.  That is a
serious problem.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

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