On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> Could we name this "postgresql_fdw" instead?  We already have several
>>> ${productname}_fdw out there, and I don't want to get in the business of
>>> having to guess variant spellings.
>> If you don't like variant spellings, having anything to do with
>> PostgreSQL, aka Postgres, and usually discussed on the pgsql-* mailing
>> lists, is probably a bad idea.
> [ snicker ]  But still, Peter has a point: pgsql is not a name for the
> product, it's at best an abbreviation.  We aren't calling the other
> thing orcl_fdw or ora_fdw.
> I think either postgres_fdw or postgresql_fdw would be fine.

I liked the shorter name, myself, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to