Re: [HACKERS] Small changes for the "no excuses" release - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas G. Lockhart
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Small changes for the "no excuses" release
Date
Msg-id 350CC0DB.3EFE0DC3@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Small changes for the "no excuses" release  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [DOCS] Re: [HACKERS] Small changes for the "no excuses" release  (Peter T Mount <pgdocs@maidast.demon.co.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > PostgreSQL seem to have a lot of names;
> >   Postgres 95, Postgres, Pg, Pgsql ... All these names are used in
> >   FAQ, filenames, docs, installation info, messages etc.
> >
> > Examples:
> >   The backend executable is 'postgres', why not 'postgresql'?
> >   INSTALL: "User postgres is the Postgres superuser"?
> >
> > I think it would be a good idea to use only "PostgreSQL" in all
> > docs, file names and so on, and "pgsql" as the official abbrev.
> >
> > This is one of the things new users notice and find strange.
> > I know, because I did, and people I know did it too.
>
> Added to TODO list.

Frankly, the voluminous docs, many adapted from the originals, seem to
read better using "Postgres" rather than "PostgreSQL" or "Postgres95". I
changed 'em all after defining what each is in the introduction. Would
be a good bit of work to change them back, particularly since folks
aren't volunteering in droves for work on documentation...

                        - Tom

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] initdb and xpg_user
Next
From: t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance