Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On Saturday 23 January 2010 16:19:11 Andrew Dunstan wrote: Robert Treat wrote: I'm not saying there aren't downsides, but having a name the community can unify on is a definite plus, and imho that name has to be Postgres. Translation: we'll only be unified if everyone agrees with me. Wow Andrew, that's kind of a dick thing to say. This really isn't about agreeing with me except maybe that I've watched the issue for years and I think I have come to the most reasonable conclusion. If there is a more reasonable conclusion, I'm happy to switch to that, but of course we'd be back to people agreeing with me... Sorry, that is quite clearly not going to happen. People said that about win32 and people said that about git; the former has happened, the latter hasn't, but I suspect it will. Given the problems with the name PostgreSQL aren't just going to magically disappear, eventually I believe a name change will be made (though I've no doubt people will try to dig themselves in deeper in opposition to it in the mean time). Can we please get on with actually making a better product? Raising this issue again is simply an unnecessary distraction. A strong and growing community is arguably the most important feature of any software project; to that extent this *is* the work of making a better product. -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: On Saturday 23 January 2010 16:19:11 Andrew Dunstan wrote: Robert Treat wrote: I'm not saying there aren't downsides, but having a name the community can unify on is a definite plus, and imho that name has to be Postgres. Translation: we'll only be unified if everyone agrees with me. Wow Andrew, that's kind of a dick thing to say. This really isn't about agreeing with me except maybe that I've watched the issue for years and I think I have come to the most reasonable conclusion. If there is a more reasonable conclusion, I'm happy to switch to that, but of course we'd be back to people agreeing with me... I'm sorry if I offended you, it seems to be my week for that. But that's how what you said came across to me. I don't actually have a horse in this race, I can live with either name. But there was a discussion on it not long ago (in which I did not take part) and a decision was made. I think bringing it up again now is unfortunate, and a serious distraction. And clearly there are reasonable counter-arguments to your position, as evidenced by this most recent discussion. I honestly do not believe that the future of the project depends on the outcome of this issue to any significant extent. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
I wrote: I don't actually have a horse in this race, I can live with either name. In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I in fact do have a horse in the race, although I wasn't thinking of it when I wrote the above. As an officer in a corporation with PostgreSQL in its name I'd be more than annoyed if the project name were changed under us. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: It's just as unclear whether MySQL is to be pronounced my-se-quel or my-ess-cue-ell, but how many people have you heard claiming that's a lousy name? Actually the original promounciation was mee-ess-cue-ell, My is monty's daughter's name and is pronounced like that. People generally pronounced it my though so they just made that the official pronounciation -- but they still don't approve of my-sequel. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On Jan 23, 2010, at 3:25 AM, Greg Stark wrote: Actually the original promounciation was mee-ess-cue-ell, My is monty's daughter's name and is pronounced like that. People generally pronounced it my though so they just made that the official pronounciation -- but they still don't approve of my-sequel. We could go with PrySQL, as in you can pry it from my cold dead fingers. Or if you're Finnish, you can think of it as coming before SQL. Or maybe TrySQL, to encourage you to try it and because you can make tress out of it. It's greener, too. Or perhaps OMGWTFSQL. No, wait, sorry, that's what I say when I'm working with MySQL. How about PugSQL? It's kind of butch, keeps the pg part, and we could have a dog logo. Or maybe we can determine that geeks are completely useless at branding and not touch this issue with a 10m pole. So, 10mPoleSQL it is. Or maybe KillThisFuckingThreadSQL. Rather suggestive, don't you think? Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
David E. Wheeler írta: On Jan 23, 2010, at 3:25 AM, Greg Stark wrote: Actually the original promounciation was mee-ess-cue-ell, My is monty's daughter's name and is pronounced like that. People generally pronounced it my though so they just made that the official pronounciation -- but they still don't approve of my-sequel. We could go with PrySQL, as in you can pry it from my cold dead fingers. Or if you're Finnish, you can think of it as coming before SQL. Or maybe TrySQL, to encourage you to try it and because you can make tress out of it. It's greener, too. Or perhaps OMGWTFSQL. No, wait, sorry, that's what I say when I'm working with MySQL. How about PugSQL? It's kind of butch, keeps the pg part, and we could have a dog logo. IIRC, Pug is a little leprechaun in Shakespeare's Midsummer night's dream. Another logo change opportunity. :-) Or maybe we can determine that geeks are completely useless at branding and not touch this issue with a 10m pole. So, 10mPoleSQL it is. Or maybe KillThisFuckingThreadSQL. Rather suggestive, don't you think? Best, David -- Bible has answers for everything. Proof: But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology. May your kingdom come - superficial description of plate tectonics -- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig Schönig GmbH http://www.postgresql.at/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: How about PugSQL? It's kind of butch, keeps the pg part, and we could have a dog logo. IIRC, Pug is a little leprechaun in Shakespeare's Midsummer night's dream. Another logo change opportunity. :-) I think you've confused Puck and Snug. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Midsummer_Night's_Dream#Characters cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On Friday 22 January 2010 23:44:11 Tom Lane wrote: David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes: On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: MS SQL, MySQL, SQLite - do they have advocacy problems due to the SQL in their name? I think it is the opposite. SQL in the name almost grants legitimacy to them as products. Dropping the SQL has the potential to increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-) Something that comes after black, but before white. Yeah. As best I can tell, most newbies think that PostgreSQL means Postgre-SQL --- they're not too sure what Postgre is, but they guess it must be the specific name of the product. And that annoys those of us who would rather they pronounced it Postgres. But in terms of recognizability of the product it's not a liability. Well, it clearly is a liability to have your product name be confused in 3 or 4 different ways. I don't think it's impossible for people to not connect the dots that someone talking about postgrey is talking about the same thing as someone talking about postgres-sequel. The business about pronunciation is a red herring. It's just as unclear whether MySQL is to be pronounced my-se-quel or my-ess-cue-ell, but how many people have you heard claiming that's a lousy name? The difference is that that product name is still easily searchable. Looking for a job? type in mysql. trying to find talent? mysql. looking for product support? mysql. need training? mysql. Every one of these things (and many more) is made harder by the constant confusion of our product name. We're currently looking to hire new dba's, and we have to adjust search information to account for the potential use of postgres or postgresql as a skill (we're currently on the fence philosophically about hiring someone who calls it postgre). But we're lucky, because we know enough to try to account for these things. Consider someone new to Postgres looking for a job. Go to monster.com and search on postgre, postgres, or postgresql and you will get a different list of jobs for each keyword. digs a little A yes, and here are those statistics I posted a couple of years ago, showing site traffic into our website. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00108.php These are for the people who figure it out, I wonder how many people we miss out on because they get sidetracked trying to find out more about postgre? You once said Arguably, the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made. I think I would have to agree, and I can't see this issue ever going away as long as we stick with PostgreSQL. I'm not saying there aren't downsides, but having a name the community can unify on is a definite plus, and imho that name has to be Postgres. -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: I'm not saying there aren't downsides, but having a name the community can unify on is a definite plus, and imho that name has to be Postgres. Translation: we'll only be unified if everyone agrees with me. Sorry, that is quite clearly not going to happen. Can we please get on with actually making a better product? Raising this issue again is simply an unnecessary distraction. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
2010/1/23 Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net: digs a little A yes, and here are those statistics I posted a couple of years ago, showing site traffic into our website. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00108.php These are for the people who figure it out, I wonder how many people we miss out on because they get sidetracked trying to find out more about postgre? FYI, the figures for the past month are: 1. postgresql 45,579 10.91% 2. postgres16,225 3.88% 3. postgre 4,901 1.17% 4. postgresql download 4,590 1.10% 5. postgresql tutorial 2,408 0.58% 6. pg_dump 1,755 0.42% 7. psql1,360 0.33% 8. postgresql odbc 1,022 0.24% 9. postgre sql 964 0.23% 10. pg_restore 871 0.21% -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On Jan 23, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: FYI, the figures for the past month are: 1.postgresql 45,579 10.91% 2.postgres16,225 3.88% 3.postgre 4,901 1.17% 4.postgresql download 4,590 1.10% 5.postgresql tutorial 2,408 0.58% 6.pg_dump 1,755 0.42% 7.psql1,360 0.33% 8.postgresql odbc 1,022 0.24% 9.postgre sql 964 0.23% 10. pg_restore 871 0.21% Huh. No pgsql. Interesting. David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
2010/1/23 David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com: On Jan 23, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: FYI, the figures for the past month are: 1. postgresql 45,579 10.91% 2. postgres 16,225 3.88% 3. postgre 4,901 1.17% 4. postgresql download 4,590 1.10% 5. postgresql tutorial 2,408 0.58% 6. pg_dump 1,755 0.42% 7. psql 1,360 0.33% 8. postgresql odbc 1,022 0.24% 9. postgre sql 964 0.23% 10. pg_restore 871 0.21% Huh. No pgsql. Interesting. pgsql shows up in position 31 with 0.12%. Beaten even by copy with 0.15%. Wel also have 17. postgress 0.16% 30. postgressql 0.12% 40. postg 0.10% 70. postgr 0.07% -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On Friday 22. January 2010 01.22.09 Tom Lane wrote: Larry Rosenman l...@lerctr.org writes: On Thu, January 21, 2010 5:53 pm, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: Care to shed some light on what features (yes, we users care about features) warrant this major version-bump? Is there a link somewhere? AFAIR, it was stated if Hot Standby AND Streaming Replication hit the tree, the release number would go to 9.0. Yeah. The question of when do we call it 9.0 has come up multiple times over the past few release cycles, and when we get built-in replication has always been one of the more popular answers. If HS+SR aren't enough to justify a major version bump, I'm not sure what would be. The other bit of rationale for this is that HS+SR are likely to induce a certain amount of, um, instability. Labeling the release with a dot-oh version number will help to set people's expectations about that. For comparison's sake, one of the main reasons for calling 8.0 8.0 was the native Windows port, and it certainly took a while for that to settle down. Thank you for the enlightening reply. -- Andreas Joseph Krogh andr...@officenet.no Senior Software Developer / CTO +-+ OfficeNet AS| The most difficult thing in the world is to | Rosenholmveien 25 | know how to do a thing and to watch | 1414 Trollåsen | somebody else doing it wrong, without | NORWAY | comment.| | | Tlf:+47 24 15 38 90 | | Fax:+47 24 15 38 91 | | Mobile: +47 909 56 963 | | +-+ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 As far as I can see, there is absolutely zero reason to care about whether the product is called Postgres or PostgreSQL. Sorry, but names matter. Advocacy matters. Please take a look in the archives on why this is so before making such a blanket statement. If it were called WeGrindUpTheBonesOfSmallChildrenSQL, maybe a change would be worth considering. Actually, that would be an improvement, because at least that's intuitively pronounceable, if a bit long. :) As it is, I submit that the product name is not on in the top 10,000 things we should be worried about fixing Well, this *was* posted to -hackers and not -advocacy, but advocacy, mind share, and many other non-hacking-on-the-base-code things matter too. And frankly, our name is one of our *top* problems. Perhaps you've never had to explain to non-technical people how to pronounce it? Or sheepishly explained why we have such a lame, geeky sounding portmanteau? Or assured people that saying Postgres is perfectly fine, and that everyone says it that way anyway? , even if there were a consensus that it were a good idea (which there isn't) I beg to differ, the change has very wide support, including among members of -core. Please read the archives. and even if -core had not already made a decision on this point (which they have). They punted, but there is no reason we can't revisit the topic. They are certainly allowed to change their minds. :) What I think we SHOULD be worrying about right now is getting 9.0 out the door, and I am 100% opposed to letting ourselves getting sucked into this or any other discussion which is likely to make that take longer than it likely already will. What makes you think this is all a zero-sum game? You are free not to get sucked into this discussion, but remember that this is a volunteer project, consisting of people with many and varied skills. There are a small handful of people who are responsible for getting 9.0 out the door. There are thousands of other people who are working on other Postgres-related things, including, at times, advocacy. I'll move this over to -advocacy where it belongs, along with some more concrete discussion of how we would make the name change, when and if it happens. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001220952 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEAREDAAYFAktZu6AACgkQvJuQZxSWSshZKACfWaOxQh9mRvhI0VvFfTRaQ48T C3sAn343Nanez3hXI+t1f+xl0YAIMcX3 =lETk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On 01/22/2010 09:52 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Well, this *was* posted to -hackers and not -advocacy, but advocacy, mind share, and many other non-hacking-on-the-base-code things matter too. And frankly, our name is one of our *top* problems. Perhaps you've never had to explain to non-technical people how to pronounce it? Or sheepishly explained why we have such a lame, geeky sounding portmanteau? Or assured people that saying Postgres is perfectly fine, and that everyone says it that way anyway? I do not read -advocacy, so I probably missed the important discussion on this subject... I cannot see how the current name is a top problem in any priority scheme I care about. I like the current name, and the *infrequent* time the question comes up, it gives me the opportunity to summarize the history of PostgreSQL, and show people how PostgreSQL is a mature product that has earned a place in software history. How this could be a problem? I don't understand. I do not believe people would choose or not choose a product based on whether they happen to pronounce it correctly from the start. Most importantly, changing the name back to Postgres does not actually make the product better in any material way, nor does it improve understanding of what the product does. Having SQL in the name, makes it clear what the product is. We use Atlassian products, and one of the first complaints we get is that people don't implicitly know what products like Bamboo, Confluence, Crucible, FishEye, or JIRA do. They cannot map the products in their head because they have no context. Calling it PostgreSQL, makes it very clear to the uninformed masses where the product fits in a product map. Tell an executive of a company Postgres, and they would ask what is it? Tell them PostgreSQL, and they'll say is that like Oracle? The second is hugely more valuable. I don't want to open the discussion, because I like things the way they are, and think the PostgreSQL developers are doing an excellent job on the high priority items. PostgreSQL is really one of the greatest open source projects out there. I love it! I just can't see a statement like our name is one of our *top* problems go by uncontested. It is false in every way I can think of considering it. Perhaps *some* people have an issue with it. Perhaps these people are enough to pressure a change against the rest who care more about performance, reliability, and features, than a name. But, ultimately, the people working on the performance, reliability, and features, are the people that are making PostgreSQL the success that it is today. The name will not and should not increase adoption. Well, at least in my not so humble opinion. Back to the exciting live standby features and such please! I'm very much looking forward to seeing them in a release. *These* features, I can sell from an advocacy perspective. :-) Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielkem...@mielke.cc -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
2010/1/23 Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc: Calling it PostgreSQL, makes it very clear to the uninformed masses where the product fits in a product map. Tell an executive of a company Postgres, and they would ask what is it? Tell them PostgreSQL, and they'll say is that like Oracle? The second is hugely more valuable. Holy query language, Batman! Do you mean to tell me that the uninformed masses you interact with have an understanding of what SQL means? I am skeptical of this claim, but if true, you must have access to the most spectacularly informed uninformed masses on the planet. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
* Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com [100122 10:29]: Holy query language, Batman! Do you mean to tell me that the uninformed masses you interact with have an understanding of what SQL means? I am skeptical of this claim, but if true, you must have access to the most spectacularly informed uninformed masses on the planet. I can't speak for Mark, but the uniformed masses I interact with tend to be the guys looking for (and authorizing) solutions in small-medium business segment... And Microsoft has done the education for us and automatically associated this unknown SQL with a big database... So despite that they have no idea what SQL actually means, or where it came from, it's got the desired association. So, my neck of the woods ain't necessarily yours, but... -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On 01/22/2010 10:57 AM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: * Brendan Jurddire...@gmail.com [100122 10:29]: Holy query language, Batman! Do you mean to tell me that the uninformed masses you interact with have an understanding of what SQL means? I am skeptical of this claim, but if true, you must have access to the most spectacularly informed uninformed masses on the planet. I can't speak for Mark, but the uniformed masses I interact with tend to be the guys looking for (and authorizing) solutions in small-medium business segment... And Microsoft has done the education for us and automatically associated this unknown SQL with a big database... So despite that they have no idea what SQL actually means, or where it came from, it's got the desired association. So, my neck of the woods ain't necessarily yours, but... Exactly. People know where SQL fits in the product map. They probably do NOT know what it stands for, but they don't really care. They pay professional technical people to understand the details. How many people know what SONAR, RADAR, or SCUBA stand for? This doesn't seem to stop them from being able to use the word effectively. MS SQL, MySQL, SQLite - do they have advocacy problems due to the SQL in their name? I think it is the opposite. SQL in the name almost grants legitimacy to them as products. Dropping the SQL has the potential to increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-) Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielkem...@mielke.cc -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: MS SQL, MySQL, SQLite - do they have advocacy problems due to the SQL in their name? I think it is the opposite. SQL in the name almost grants legitimacy to them as products. Dropping the SQL has the potential to increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-) Something that comes after black, but before white. David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes: On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: MS SQL, MySQL, SQLite - do they have advocacy problems due to the SQL in their name? I think it is the opposite. SQL in the name almost grants legitimacy to them as products. Dropping the SQL has the potential to increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-) Something that comes after black, but before white. Yeah. As best I can tell, most newbies think that PostgreSQL means Postgre-SQL --- they're not too sure what Postgre is, but they guess it must be the specific name of the product. And that annoys those of us who would rather they pronounced it Postgres. But in terms of recognizability of the product it's not a liability. The business about pronunciation is a red herring. It's just as unclear whether MySQL is to be pronounced my-se-quel or my-ess-cue-ell, but how many people have you heard claiming that's a lousy name? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Tom Lane wrote: David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes: On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: MS SQL, MySQL, SQLite - do they have advocacy problems due to the SQL in their name? I think it is the opposite. SQL in the name almost grants legitimacy to them as products. Dropping the SQL has the potential to increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-) Something that comes after black, but before white. Yeah. As best I can tell, most newbies think that PostgreSQL means Postgre-SQL --- they're not too sure what Postgre is, but they guess it must be the specific name of the product. And that annoys those of us who would rather they pronounced it Postgres. But in terms of recognizability of the product it's not a liability. The business about pronunciation is a red herring. It's just as unclear whether MySQL is My personal experience has shown that people not familiar with the project can't remember it's name (even 10 minutes after I said it). It doesn't really roll off your tongue, unless you count tree nodes in your sleep. This may have an affect on the project's reach. I am not really advocating a name change, but if a different name makes postgresql more popular, however silly that may seem, then I am all for it. This is a difficult marketing decision. -- Andrew Chernow eSilo, LLC every bit counts http://www.esilo.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
2010/1/23 Andrew Chernow a...@esilo.com: Tom Lane wrote: David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes: On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: MS SQL, MySQL, SQLite - do they have advocacy problems due to the SQL in their name? I think it is the opposite. SQL in the name almost grants legitimacy to them as products. Dropping the SQL has the potential to increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-) Something that comes after black, but before white. Yeah. As best I can tell, most newbies think that PostgreSQL means Postgre-SQL --- they're not too sure what Postgre is, but they guess it must be the specific name of the product. And that annoys those of us who would rather they pronounced it Postgres. But in terms of recognizability of the product it's not a liability. The business about pronunciation is a red herring. It's just as unclear whether MySQL is My personal experience has shown that people not familiar with the project can't remember it's name (even 10 minutes after I said it). It doesn't really roll off your tongue, unless you count tree nodes in your sleep. This may have an affect on the project's reach. I am not really advocating a name change, but if a different name makes postgresql more popular, however silly that may seem, then I am all for it. This is a difficult marketing decision. I am not sure so different name makes postgresql more popular - it is marketing for short-live products. If I can speak some: for Czech language - the pronunciation of PostgreSQL in Czech isn't any problem. PostgreSQL is mark with very good reputation - and some pople will go from Oracle or MySQL, I'll have a better job then to explain so Postgres is PostgreSQL. so for me -1 Pavel -- Andrew Chernow eSilo, LLC every bit counts http://www.esilo.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
think also how people use SQL word , when calling ms sql server. They would just say 'sql server' , and to some I had to explain that the little greedy company didn't actually invented sql, hence it should be called ms sql server... so, -1 for dropping SQL word from me. ... and maybe the shed should be yellow, and with flat roof... -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
In an attempt to pre-empt the normally drawn-out discussions about what the next version of PostgreSQL will be numbered. the core team have discussed the issue and following a lenghty debate lasting literally a few minutes decided that the next release shall be Wait for it 9.0. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
Wait for it 9.0. Yeah!!! -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 no fx, no carrier pigeon - %s is too gigantic of an industry to bend to the whims of reality -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On 21/01/10 09:37, Dave Page wrote: In an attempt to pre-empt the normally drawn-out discussions about what the next version of PostgreSQL will be numbered. the core team have discussed the issue and following a lenghty debate lasting literally a few minutes decided that the next release shall be Wait for it 9.0. You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for their projects. There - that should distract everyone from actual release-related work for the next week or so :-) -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Richard Huxton d...@archonet.com wrote: You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for their projects. There - that should distract everyone from actual release-related work for the next week or so :-) Nicely done Sir :-) -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
2010/1/21 Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org In an attempt to pre-empt the normally drawn-out discussions about what the next version of PostgreSQL will be numbered. the core team have discussed the issue and following a lenghty debate lasting literally a few minutes decided that the next release shall be Wait for it 9.0. I feel sorry for 8.5 now. It had such high hopes of becoming a proper version. So, does this mean the next alpha/beta will be named 9.0 too? Thom
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Thom Brown thombr...@gmail.com wrote: I feel sorry for 8.5 now. It had such high hopes of becoming a proper version. Yeah, well - it'll be remembered. I still find occasional references to PostgreSQL 7.5 in the pgAdmin code. So, does this mean the next alpha/beta will be named 9.0 too? 9.0alpha4 -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 9.0. You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for their projects. I've got one: Postgres Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time to do it. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001210726 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEAREDAAYFAktYR90ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjDmACfVud6mJMRDX5poG1c+Y+z4UYw jUIAnR9+OaIHNDwT3ZhiCivMF3skGJwn =fWzV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 12:26 +, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time to do it. I thought we ended up that thread already? -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com wrote: I've got one: Postgres Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time to do it. Please don't start that again. It was distracting enough last time. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-11/msg00109.php -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
* Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote: Wait for it 9.0. Sure, tell us now, after we've all already had to submit our 8.5-related talks for PGCon... ;) Thanks! Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: * Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote: Wait for it 9.0. Sure, tell us now, after we've all already had to submit our 8.5-related talks for PGCon... ;) What's 8.5? -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On tor, 2010-01-21 at 10:36 +, Richard Huxton wrote: 9.0. You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for their projects. The One That Worked -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
Peter Eisentraut wrote: On tor, 2010-01-21 at 10:36 +, Richard Huxton wrote: 9.0. You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for their projects. The One That Worked Bullwinkle (This time for sure!) cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Bullwinkle (This time for sure!) LOL But that trick never works... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7mmrF-4rUE -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
9.0. You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for their projects. Black Dog yup, I'm a zeppelin fan :) -- Andrew Chernow eSilo, LLC every bit counts http://www.esilo.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time to do it. I thought we ended up that thread already? Well, the thread may have ended, but the problem remains. Call it the 900 pound gorilla in a room full of elephants. I know many people are loathe to see the discussion come up again, but as long as the project is saddled with its ugly and unweildy official name, it has a large problem. It's really in the best interests of the project to make the change as soon as possible, and undo the mistake of changing it from Postgres in the first place. Changing it to coincide with the interest bounce we'll get from the Oracle/MySQL situation seems a no-brainer from an advocacy perspective. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001211135 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEAREDAAYFAktYgw0ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjgSwCghMphV61CIRDBGGscItZxvVQ9 E54AnjGqqYuXewjmwszaXX0sP7oWlg68 =DQfT -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com wrote: many people are loathe to see the discussion come up again, but as long as the project is saddled with its ugly and unweildy official name, it has a large problem. I don't particularly like the official stance on pronouncing it, but other than that I see no problem. Just pronounce the QL in PostgreSQL the same way you do the b in subtle and have done with it. I'm not for changing the spelling of either one. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
2010/1/21 Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time to do it. I thought we ended up that thread already? Well, the thread may have ended, but the problem remains. Call it the 900 pound gorilla in a room full of elephants. I know many people are loathe to see the discussion come up again, but as long as the project is saddled with its ugly and unweildy official name, it has a large problem. it is your opinion - not my. I thing, so is nonsense returning to closed chapters. Regards Pavel It's really in the best interests of the project to make the change as soon as possible, and undo the mistake of changing it from Postgres in the first place. Changing it to coincide with the interest bounce we'll get from the Oracle/MySQL situation seems a no-brainer from an advocacy perspective. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001211135 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEAREDAAYFAktYgw0ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjgSwCghMphV61CIRDBGGscItZxvVQ9 E54AnjGqqYuXewjmwszaXX0sP7oWlg68 =DQfT -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time to do it. I thought we ended up that thread already? Well, the thread may have ended, but the problem remains. Call it the 900 pound gorilla in a room full of elephants. I know many people are loathe to see the discussion come up again, but as long as the project is saddled with its ugly and unweildy official name, it has a large problem. it is your opinion - not my. I thing, so is nonsense returning to closed chapters. I couldn't have said it better myself. As far as I can see, there is absolutely zero reason to care about whether the product is called Postgres or PostgreSQL. If it were called WeGrindUpTheBonesOfSmallChildrenSQL, maybe a change would be worth considering. As it is, I submit that the product name is not on in the top 10,000 things we should be worried about fixing, even if there were a consensus that it were a good idea (which there isn't) and even if -core had not already made a decision on this point (which they have). What I think we SHOULD be worrying about right now is getting 9.0 out the door, and I am 100% opposed to letting ourselves getting sucked into this or any other discussion which is likely to make that take longer than it likely already will. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On Jan 21, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote: As far as I can see, there is absolutely zero reason to care about whether the product is called Postgres or PostgreSQL. How about simply Post? Or just SQL? ;-P If it were called WeGrindUpTheBonesOfSmallChildrenSQL, maybe a change would be worth considering. And where do you think baby powder comes from? Sheesh. As it is, I submit that the product name is not on in the top 10,000 things we should be worried about fixing, even if there were a consensus that it were a good idea (which there isn't) and even if -core had not already made a decision on this point (which they have). What I think we SHOULD be worrying about right now is getting 9.0 out the door, and I am 100% opposed to letting ourselves getting sucked into this or any other discussion which is likely to make that take longer than it likely already will. +1 David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On 21 Jan 2010, at 09:37, Dave Page wrote: In an attempt to pre-empt the normally drawn-out discussions about what the next version of PostgreSQL will be numbered. the core team have discussed the issue and following a lenghty debate lasting literally a few minutes decided that the next release shall be Wait for it 9.0. darn, looks like PostgreSQL developers can only count to 4 :) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: On 21 Jan 2010, at 09:37, Dave Page wrote: In an attempt to pre-empt the normally drawn-out discussions about what the next version of PostgreSQL will be numbered. the core team have discussed the issue and following a lenghty debate lasting literally a few minutes decided that the next release shall be Wait for it 9.0. darn, looks like PostgreSQL developers can only count to 4 :) http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-6-5.html :) Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 21:26 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-6-5.html That was another great release IMHO. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:35 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: And where do you think baby powder comes from? Sheesh. You won the thread! eric -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Andrew Chernow a...@esilo.com wrote: 9.0. You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for their projects. Black Dog yup, I'm a zeppelin fan :) +1 :) -- Regards, Michael Paquier NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
One other point about this, before anyone asks: we will of course have to go through the source code and docs to s/8.5/9.0/. The plan is to do that between the conclusion of the current commitfest and the release of the final alpha version (which will therefore call itself 9.0alpha4 not 8.5alpha4). This delay is to avoid creating needless merge problems for as-yet-unapplied patches. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On Thursday 21. January 2010 10.37.41 Dave Page wrote: In an attempt to pre-empt the normally drawn-out discussions about what the next version of PostgreSQL will be numbered. the core team have discussed the issue and following a lenghty debate lasting literally a few minutes decided that the next release shall be Wait for it 9.0. Care to shed some light on what features (yes, we users care about features) warrant this major version-bump? Is there a link somewhere? -- Andreas Joseph Krogh andr...@officenet.no Senior Software Developer / CTO +-+ OfficeNet AS| The most difficult thing in the world is to | Rosenholmveien 25 | know how to do a thing and to watch | 1414 Trollåsen | somebody else doing it wrong, without | NORWAY | comment.| | | Tlf:+47 24 15 38 90 | | Fax:+47 24 15 38 91 | | Mobile: +47 909 56 963 | | +-+ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
On Thu, January 21, 2010 5:53 pm, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: On Thursday 21. January 2010 10.37.41 Dave Page wrote: In an attempt to pre-empt the normally drawn-out discussions about what the next version of PostgreSQL will be numbered. the core team have discussed the issue and following a lenghty debate lasting literally a few minutes decided that the next release shall be Wait for it 9.0. Care to shed some light on what features (yes, we users care about features) warrant this major version-bump? Is there a link somewhere? AFAIR, it was stated if Hot Standby AND Streaming Replication hit the tree, the release number would go to 9.0. Both are in the tree. -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: l...@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0
Larry Rosenman l...@lerctr.org writes: On Thu, January 21, 2010 5:53 pm, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: Care to shed some light on what features (yes, we users care about features) warrant this major version-bump? Is there a link somewhere? AFAIR, it was stated if Hot Standby AND Streaming Replication hit the tree, the release number would go to 9.0. Yeah. The question of when do we call it 9.0 has come up multiple times over the past few release cycles, and when we get built-in replication has always been one of the more popular answers. If HS+SR aren't enough to justify a major version bump, I'm not sure what would be. The other bit of rationale for this is that HS+SR are likely to induce a certain amount of, um, instability. Labeling the release with a dot-oh version number will help to set people's expectations about that. For comparison's sake, one of the main reasons for calling 8.0 8.0 was the native Windows port, and it certainly took a while for that to settle down. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Eric B. Ridge wrote: On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:35 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: And where do you think baby powder comes from? Sheesh. You won the thread! Heh, who's the wise guy that posted the second comment on http://www.betanews.com/article/EU-clears-Oracle-Sun-If-MySQL-fails-theres-always-PostgreSQL/1264109388 ? -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
