The only thing I hate about PostgreSQL is that it's hard to type with all
that mixed case. I confess that I've always pronounced it "postgres"
anyway, so there!
The point of a name is to be distinctive and somewhat descriptive.
Postgres suffices to set the product off from other database systems.
There's no real need for the SQL to be in the name. Even Microsoft, in
their eternal marketing battle, doesn't make a point of writing AccesSQL.
My two bits, and your mileage may vary.
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> > Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > > I have chosen to use "Postgres" within the docs, as a shorter (and
> > > pronouncable ;) form of our product. "PostgreSQL" appears in all
> >
> > How hard is it to say "Postgresquel", really? Don't tell me you've been
> > saying "Postgres cue ell".....;-)
>
> I have! I don't see that there is really any difference between saying
> "postgresequel" and "postgres-cue-ell". The syllables are just switched.
> (kind of) However, perhaps the inventors of this term could offer their
> insight into their intended pronounciation.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut
> PathWay Computing, Inc.
>
>
>
