Thread: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??
I was thinking and it seems that by the next release of Postgres we might have: * Schemas * Domains * Maybe a new on-the-wire protocol * ...and maybe prepared statement support to go along with?? Doesn't this seem like postgresql 8.0, rather than 7.3? Chris
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> Doesn't this seem like postgresql 8.0, rather than 7.3?
It took us five years to go from 6.0 to 7.0 ... I don't think we
need talk about 8.0 for awhile yet.
I'm not in favor of arbitrary "release number inflation". A release
is a release, whatever you call it.
regards, tom lane
Personally, I have to agree with Tom, Silly versioning like that is for marketing teams and microsoft ;-) <sarcasm>How about the next version be released as PostgreSQL XP</sarcasm> Tom Lane wrote: > > "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes: > > Doesn't this seem like postgresql 8.0, rather than 7.3? > > It took us five years to go from 6.0 to 7.0 ... I don't think we > need talk about 8.0 for awhile yet. > > I'm not in favor of arbitrary "release number inflation". A release > is a release, whatever you call it. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html -- Colin Faber (303) 859-1491 fpsn.net, Inc.
Heh Heh Heh Well, if we can get a *really good operating version of PostgreSQL in Cygwin* happening on XP, why not? ;-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Colin Faber wrote: > > Personally, I have to agree with Tom, > > Silly versioning like that is for marketing teams and microsoft ;-) > > <sarcasm>How about the next version be released as PostgreSQL > XP</sarcasm> > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes: > > > Doesn't this seem like postgresql 8.0, rather than 7.3? > > > > It took us five years to go from 6.0 to 7.0 ... I don't think we > > need talk about 8.0 for awhile yet. > > > > I'm not in favor of arbitrary "release number inflation". A release > > is a release, whatever you call it. > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > > -- > Colin Faber > (303) 859-1491 > fpsn.net, Inc. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature... I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL', I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100 times simpler... Lee. Colin Faber writes:> Personally, I have to agree with Tom,> > Silly versioning like that is for marketing teams and microsoft;-)> > <sarcasm>How about the next version be released as PostgreSQL> XP</sarcasm>> > Tom Lane wrote:> > > > "ChristopherKings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:> > > Doesn't this seem like postgresql 8.0, rather than 7.3?>> > > It took us five years to go from 6.0 to 7.0 ... I don't think we> > need talk about 8.0 for awhile yet.> > > >I'm not in favor of arbitrary "release number inflation". A release> > is a release, whatever you call it.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote: > On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature... > > I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL', > I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100 > times simpler... As much as I get really bored when this comes up time after time.. "post-gre-sql" (And no, SQL's not pronounced sequel) -- Dominic J. Eidson "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Dominic J. Eidson wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote: > > > On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature... > > > > I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL', > > I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100 > > times simpler... > > As much as I get really bored when this comes up time after time.. > > "post-gre-sql" > > (And no, SQL's not pronounced sequel) The proper pronunciation is on the PostgreSQL home page in mp3 and wav formats. The above implies that the second sylable is pronounced with a long e which is incorrect. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo atPop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Dominic J. Eidson wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote: > > > > > On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature... > > > > > > I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL', > > > I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100 > > > times simpler... > > > > As much as I get really bored when this comes up time after time.. > > > > "post-gre-sql" > > > > (And no, SQL's not pronounced sequel) > > The proper pronunciation is on the PostgreSQL home page in mp3 and > wav formats. The above implies that the second sylable is pronounced > with a long e which is incorrect. Sorry, that should've been "post-gres-ql", same as the mp3. -- Dominic J. Eidson "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/
Guys, Vince Vielhaber writes:> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote:> > > Ona slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature...> > > I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL',>> > I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100> > > times simpler...> > As much asI get really bored when this comes up time after time..> > "post-gre-sql" (And no, SQL's not pronounced sequel)> The properpronunciation is on the PostgreSQL home page in mp3 and> wav formats. The above implies that the second sylable ispronounced> with a long e which is incorrect. I know how it's pronounced, I never said anything to the contrary! The actual fact that there is a need for the pronunciation on the webpage hints at my point - it's a real mouthful! And as I said this was a 'whimsical' post - I don't really care either way what the name is... But i'm sure most people shorten it to Postgres. Lee.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote: > On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature... > > I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL', > I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100 > times simpler... What is so hard about: Post-GreS-Q-L? I've yet to have a problem with it rolling off the tongue ... Now, of course, if you want Postgres, we can always rip out the SQL, revert back to PostQuel for the Query language ... but I suspect you might be one of the few that wants that, no? :) That woudl kinda set us back ~6 years and put the project back into UofC@B, no?
Justin Clift wrote: > Heh Heh Heh > > Well, if we can get a *really good operating version of PostgreSQL in > Cygwin* happening on XP, why not? Postgrillenium? XPg? PostgreSQL for Workgroups! > > ;-) > > Regards and best wishes, > > Justin Clift Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote: > Guys, > > Vince Vielhaber writes: > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Dominic J. Eidson wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote: > > > > On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature... > > > > I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL', > > > > I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100 > > > > times simpler... > > > As much as I get really bored when this comes up time after time.. > > > "post-gre-sql" (And no, SQL's not pronounced sequel) > > The proper pronunciation is on the PostgreSQL home page in mp3 and > > wav formats. The above implies that the second sylable is pronounced > > with a long e which is incorrect. > > I know how it's pronounced, I never said anything to the contrary! The > actual fact that there is a need for the pronunciation on the webpage > hints at my point - it's a real mouthful! > > And as I said this was a 'whimsical' post - I don't really care either > way what the name is... But i'm sure most people shorten it to > Postgres. I shorten it to PgSQL, and just 'pronounce' the letters *shrug* Postgres is a different project, with a different Query langauge ...
On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 01:11, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > I know how it's pronounced, I never said anything to the contrary! The > > actual fact that there is a need for the pronunciation on the webpage > > hints at my point - it's a real mouthful! > > > > And as I said this was a 'whimsical' post - I don't really care either > > way what the name is... But i'm sure most people shorten it to > > Postgres. > > I shorten it to PgSQL, and just 'pronounce' the letters *shrug* I often omit the the -gre- part so it comes out as PostSQL - most people never notice.. > Postgres is a different project, with a different Query langauge ... Postgres 95 is what - a different project with the same query language, or the same project with a different name? Of course we should have gone the industry standard way - first to Postgres 98, then 5.0/2000 and then XP :) Btw there are rumours that the next version of Windows will be based on relational data storage thus they too will reach WindowSQL soon. Hah! ------------- Hannu
Colin Faber wrote: > > Personally, I have to agree with Tom, > > Silly versioning like that is for marketing teams and microsoft ;-) > > <sarcasm>How about the next version be released as PostgreSQL > XP</sarcasm> Let us not all think we are "too good" not to market our work. I have been involved with too many projects that were technically better, but managed and marketed poorly, thus failed. PostgreSQL could use a bit of marketing here and there. The version number thing? I don't know, but a bit of competitive window dressing would help a great deal. I don't know about you guys, but I would LOVE PostgreSQL to be the dominant SQL engine on small to medium deployments. Not only is it capable of doing so, it is better than almost all the technologies in that space. For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played.
...
Agreed.
> For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played.
Hmm. Would "PostgreSQL version (Oracle + 1)i" be too transparent? ;)
- Thomas
Heh Heh Heh How about PostgreSQL Server 11.0 Enterprise Edition? :) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > ... > > Agreed. > > > For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played. > > Hmm. Would "PostgreSQL version (Oracle + 1)i" be too transparent? ;) > > - Thomas > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
Pee - Gee - Sequel pgSQL Is much easier to say... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Nicewick American Management Systems Corporate Technology Group art_nicewick@ams.com (703) 267-8569 Quote of the week: All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. --IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Thomas Lockhart <thomas@fourpalms.org> writes: > ... > > Agreed. > > > For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played. > > Hmm. Would "PostgreSQL version (Oracle + 1)i" be too transparent? ;) > > - Thomas I think that it makes better sense than PostgreSQL XP. Whatever "marketing" you guys plan to do make sure you mix in a vowel or two. Personally I would promote the idea of going "all out" and naming the new version of PostgreSQL something like: PostgreSQL 2002i XP Anywhere eDatabase-O-Matic.NET This might require a change in the MP3 pronunciation file, and you probably wouldn't want to make the name change official until you bumped up the maximum column length. Jason
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Justin Clift wrote: > Heh Heh Heh > > How about PostgreSQL Server 11.0 Enterprise Edition? > > :) > > Regards and best wishes, > > Justin Clift Hmm, What about Redhat Database. Oops, that's been done already. :) Carpe viam, Mike
haha. I love it jason, "PostgreSQL 2002i XP Anywhere eDatabase-O-Matic.NET" "For those of you that need to harness distributed interfaces, engineer world-class architectures and synthesize cross-media experiences for the expedition of your integrated communities" Jason Earl wrote: > > Thomas Lockhart <thomas@fourpalms.org> writes: > > > ... > > > > Agreed. > > > > > For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played. > > > > Hmm. Would "PostgreSQL version (Oracle + 1)i" be too transparent? ;) > > > > - Thomas > > I think that it makes better sense than PostgreSQL XP. Whatever > "marketing" you guys plan to do make sure you mix in a vowel or two. > > Personally I would promote the idea of going "all out" and naming the > new version of PostgreSQL something like: > > PostgreSQL 2002i XP Anywhere eDatabase-O-Matic.NET > > This might require a change in the MP3 pronunciation file, and you > probably wouldn't want to make the name change official until you > bumped up the maximum column length. > > Jason > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org -- Colin Faber (303) 859-1491 fpsn.net, Inc.
Le Mardi 26 Février 2002 19:09, Justin Clift a écrit : > How about PostgreSQL Server 11.0 Enterprise Edition? Let me show you how to free the world from marketing numberings: Oracle 8, Oracle 9, Oracle 10, Oracle 11, Oracle 12, Oracle 13, ..., Oracle is dead. No more Oracle. Free, at last ... /JMP
> What do you mean? Oracle 8.0 will die. So why stick to its versions?