> Why is someone (presumably from southern California) always changing all
> mentions of "PostgreSQL" in the documentation to "Postgres"? Wouldn't it
> be more productive the other way around?
:)
The document conventions are mentioned in the introductory section on
"Notation". I'm trying for a consistant presentation within the
documents, and had settled on "Postgres" as a readable, pronounceable
form for our project. I try to keep "PostgreSQL" for introductory
sections and book and chapter headings. I suppose that those
conventions could be up for discussion (as is everything else wrt
Postgres^HSQL) but I'm not sure that changing this particular
convention buys us anything other than heavier docs. To my mind, this
s/w is the only survivor of the Postgres family, and there is no need
to distinguish it from other, older, relatives.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
