On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 13:22 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I actually like PGXN. PGXN is marketable. Yeah that may not be what
> > -hackers are after but if I stand up in front of a Fortune 500 company
> > and say, "We have PGXN" it sounds a heck of a lot better that PGAN.
>
> I think the attraction of PGAN is that people have some hope of guessing
> what it means (CPAN/PGAN), and because C and G look similar, there is
> even more an association, e.g. swap C and P, change C to G, and viola.
>
> The attraction of PGXN is that it looks like PGXS.
Again, to hackers :). I am looking at this differently. If I stand up
and say,
"PostgreSQL has PGXN, the PostgreSQL Extension Network"
Versus
"PostgreSQL has PGAN, P can that Can, I am Pee gannning." What?
Anyway, a name is a name. We are PostgreSQL after all.
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
