Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Brett W. McCoy
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSI.3.91.980722122042.7328C-100000@access1.lan2wan.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products  (Amos Hayes <ahayes@ingenia.com>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products  (Amos Hayes <ahayes@ingenia.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Amos Hayes wrote:

> I almost hate to ask, and really, it's not a big deal to me personally,
> but why is it called "PostgreSQL"?

Originally it was just Postgres, and didn't support any SQL.  When it was
redesigned with SQL support, that's when the SQL postfix came about.
Actually, it was known as Postgres95 originally to differentiate it from
the original Postgres, but as it moved towards SQL compliancy, the SQL
postfix becamse the norm.  The full story is in the PostgreSQL
documentation.

Brett W. McCoy
                                         http://www.lan2wan.com/~bmccoy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected."
   -- The UNIX Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Byron Nikolaidis
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on Linux]
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: SGVLLUG Oracle and Informix on Linux]