> I would go further and say that in the near future when some
> milestone is reached (say, the addition of outer joins?) it
> might be a good idea to mark the occasion with a name change
> of some sort.
In my personal experience, out in the real world, people refer to it as
"Postgres". The QL being a mouthful, and contrary to the common practice
of pronouncing SQL as SEQUEL. While Marc points out that technically
Postgres died when it left Berkeley, that discontinuity is really only
something we choose to acknowledge. As Henry points out, SQL is only one
feature that happened to be added. Apart from not owning the domain
name, why shouldn't it just be "Postgres"?
