On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > There's only a little thing that I would like to recall your attention;
> > > I see whenever the name Postgres instead of
> > > PostgreSQL. Is there a reason to continue to call it Postgres in the
> > > docs ?
> >
> > I have chosen to use "Postgres" within the docs, as a shorter (and
> > pronouncable ;) form of our product. "PostgreSQL" appears in all
> > titles and introductory material. I have considered the "SQL" part of
> > the "PostgreSQL" as sort of a version or branch, like "OpenIngres" or
> > "Windows 2000", and a bit cumbersome in the body of the docs.
> >
> > But that was a choice which can always be reconsidered, we're just a
> > "sed" away from a different name...
>
> I vote for PostgreSQL.
I second it...whenever ppl mention "postgres", i think back to our
ancestor and figure they are referring to that :(
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
