Hi,
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 02:06 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> The goal was to promote "Postgres" as an alternate name. I thought I
> had general agreement from the group to do this in both FAQs. If not,
> I will revert it.
IIRC, the consensus was only mentioning it as an alias, as you wrote in
#1.1 of FAQ. They rest is not needed (and confusing) IMHO -- because
people may not read the FAQ from the beginning.
So the other Postgres' should be reverted, IMHO.
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
