"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> A) Favor www.postgresql.net
>> B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org
>> C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless.
> I'm not crazy about the name pgfoundry, but otherwise I think it's the
> better choice. The "www." problem could be circumvented by renaming the
> project, perhaps, but I think it's best to keep a distinction between
> "Postres, the database" and "related projects."
Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the
projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database remaining
at *.postgresql.org. I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or
not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear
that the domains are related. pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
