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
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
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
2010/1/23 David E. Wheeler :
> 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
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.
2010/1/23 Robert Treat :
> 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 beca
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
On Friday 22 January 2010 23:44:11 Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" 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
> >> legitima
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
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
>> pronouncia
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 approv
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Tom Lane 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 a
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
2010/1/23 Andrew Chernow :
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> "David E. Wheeler" 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
l
Tom Lane wrote:
"David E. Wheeler" 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 p
"David E. Wheeler" 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
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 i
On 01/22/2010 10:57 AM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
* Brendan Jurd [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
* Brendan Jurd [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 "uninfor
2010/1/23 Mark Mielke :
> 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 h
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-techni
-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. Advoca
On Friday 22. January 2010 01.22.09 Tom Lane wrote:
> "Larry Rosenman" 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?
>
> >
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-Oracl
"Larry Rosenman" 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 h
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 follow
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
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)
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Andrew Chernow 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
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
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~li
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 de
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 r
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 wou
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Pavel Stehule 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
2010/1/21 Greg Sabino Mullane :
>
> -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,
"Greg Sabino Mullane" 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 p
-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 rema
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 s
Andrew Dunstan 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/
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
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://w
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Stephen Frost 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.c
* 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
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane 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 t
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://ww
-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 ti
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Thom Brown 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 na
2010/1/21 Dave Page
> 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
>
>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Richard Huxton 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
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.
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-ha
52 matches
Mail list logo
