What should the "theme" of this release be? Performance seems like the
obvious one, but rather predictable. Is there any other tack we could take?
"Enterprise adoption" would be nice, but would count on getting an extensive
quote from a large company which planned on migrating to PostgreSQL based on
the 8.3 features. I don't know of anyone offhand.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majo...@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> What should the "theme" of this release be? Performance seems like the
> obvious one, but rather predictable. Is there any other tack we could take?
Scalability.
>
> "Enterprise adoption" would be nice, but would count on getting an extensive
> quote from a large company which planned on migrating to PostgreSQL based on
> the 8.3 features. I don't know of anyone offhand.
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGzdMHATb/zqfZUUQRAlbEAJ91upXFGLaHFZxfY/4SJF7uiEs5bgCeOf0a
G9OyhbILeZM3ZqFylDmvYio=
=CBUN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
What should the "theme" of this release be? Performance seems like the
obvious one, but rather predictable. Is there any other tack we could take?
Harald Armin Massa wrote:
> Josh,
>
> What should the "theme" of this release be? Performance seems like the
>> obvious one, but rather predictable. Is there any other tack we could
>> take?
>>
>> If the Visual C buildability does make it, I suggest we also stress that
> point. Whatever somebody thinks about windows, it is a very well known
> platform; and "compilability with a Microsoft Compiler" can give some good
> impressions with nontech management.
Hmmm we may be able to spin (did I actually write that) this...
I think that stating MSVC capability isn't worth much... but:
Greater Win32 scalability through native 64bit Win32 support and MSVC
native compilation.
Yes the Win32 twice is redundant but I can hear the roars now...
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Harald
>
>
>
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGzdxgATb/zqfZUUQRAvx8AJ93hQeJSHDhSDV+DCG2W6jC0Jp2LQCbB8CH
yXF1EoriLnrOYKHtJlxL/Qs=
=zIwK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> Greater Win32 scalability through native 64bit Win32 support and MSVC
> native compilation.
Huh? We did the 64 bit?
That's actually big news ...
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
Wasn't Performance the theme of the last release?
- Another Josh
We didn't. So we very much should not push that point ;-)
(BTW, what the heck is native 64bit win32? Is that what the rest of us
call win64? :-P)
//Magnus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Josh,
>>
>>> Greater Win32 scalability through native 64bit Win32 support and MSVC
>>> native compilation.
>> Huh? We did the 64 bit?
>>
>> That's actually big news ...
>
> We didn't. So we very much should not push that point ;-)
>
> (BTW, what the heck is native 64bit win32? Is that what the rest of us
> call win64? :-P)
I make no apologies for not having an understanding of the terminology
Win64, as I don't run windows for anything except games. ;)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> //Magnus
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGzd4wATb/zqfZUUQRAo0cAJ4/Bo67rYf6t/ItXu4g4CmH0nhwUQCdGcSQ
JASrBiL0PJg5wAsMM/u3NlQ=
=cuIE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Josh,
>>
>>> Greater Win32 scalability through native 64bit Win32 support and MSVC
>>> native compilation.
>> Huh? We did the 64 bit?
>>
>> That's actually big news ...
>
> We didn't. So we very much should not push that point ;-)
Oh, I thought we were 64bit safe on Win32 with the MSVC compiler. Sorry
for the noise.
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGzd5SATb/zqfZUUQRAg1BAJ9c23+nLshw5oRqGnoUVMK6s0AijACdENTR
FK/rWGRF3yz5tTCtkj9nZEE=
=9RFC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> Wasn't Performance the theme of the last release?
No, it was "maturity".
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Josh,
>
>> Wasn't Performance the theme of the last release?
>
> No, it was "maturity".
O.k. that's it. I am JD from now on, there are way too many Josh's
present anymore.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGzeTnATb/zqfZUUQRAtRyAJ4ryGMGORKlQp8Vtxvp3OMSLQpEZACfU4sH
/+ojOb2o0rrK0yWtvZqdoPs=
=ua1g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
8.1 has
The new release includes performance improvements and advanced SQL
features which will support bigger data warehouses, higher-volume
transaction processing, and more complex distributed enterprise
software.
8.2 has
This 14th public release adds features, maturity, and performance
requested by business users, delivering manageability comparable to
leading enterprise database systems.
So performance has always been part of the theme. The question is _what else_
will be theme this release ...
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
Well we have XML and TSearch2 as a new functional features.
We have HOT and plan invalidation as a new features for better 24/7
support (aside from performance).
Looking at [1] some of the items are too short and unknown for me to
make sense of what they imply. But so far I would say the postgresql
developers have improved the handling of (structured) clobs as well as
made postgresql more able to run 24/7 operations.
regards,
Lukas
Some of the (main) patches included, from the dedicated wiki page[1], are:
Tsearch2, big feature
HOT, performances & scalability
Async Commit, performance & scalability
Sync Scan, performance & scalability
Load distributed checkpoint, perfs & scalability
Updatable Cursors, feature
Circular buffer in tuplestore, perfs?
scan resistant buffer cache, perfs & scalability
varlena length, perfs & scalability
Index Advisor, scalability
Sorry if some items are badly categorized, feel free to correct if it proves
useful for the topic. Same with missing important patches...
What I'd propose as the main theme is scalability and ongoing features
completion. PostgreSQL has less and less missing from the other big
commercial ones, and is more and more capable of serving big databases in
demanding environments. More capable than competition? certainly, try out by
yourself...
Ok, I'll let the people with some editing talent formulating this ;)
[1] http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/Todo:PatchStatus
Hope this helps, Regards,
--
dim
You need to have it added in twice in order to get up to the full 64
bits ;-).
[As the crowd roars, again...]
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxfinances.info")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/x.html
No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article. AND I
WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!
-- glm...@twirl.mcc.ac.uk in alt.sysadmin.recovery
"Enterprisyness"
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Sadly, PostgreSQL 8.3 will lack the required byzantine entangled
layers of Java, C#, SOAP and round-cornered AJAX goodness which are
this week's /sine qua non/ of Enterprisiness.
On the bright side, it's got useful new features and new hooks for
creating even more useful new features :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
I would say users are getting PostgreSQL features expected in 2010
today. As for terms: flexibility, adapability, autotuning, new
capabilities for new workloads. "PostgreSQL just got smarter."
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Sadly, PostgreSQL 8.3 will lack the required byzantine entangled
layers of Java, C#, SOAP and round-cornered AJAX goodness which are
this week's /sine qua non/ of Enterprisiness.
I like that slogan. (Or would, if "PostgreSQL" wasn't so awkward to
say ;-)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | a...@crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
--Dennis Ritchie
> I would say users are getting PostgreSQL features expected in 2010
> today. As for terms: flexibility, adapability, autotuning, new
> capabilities for new workloads. "PostgreSQL just got smarter."
Can you link the actual features to those themes? I'm not seeing some of
them ...
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
"link"? I am thinking HOT and concurrent sequential scans and async
commit. These were things I didn't think we would get so soon.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
What I mean is:
flexibility == feature?
adaptability == feature?
autotuning == feature?
new capabilities == XML, scaling, checkpoint, etc.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
Ah, OK.
autotuning: HOT (handles update cleanup automatically), concurrent seqscans
flexibility: async commit
adaptability: checkpoint smoothing
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
+1. Seeing how many people I run into talking about Postgre
and Post-Gresquel, if there's one advocacy feature I would
suggest for 8.4 it'd be that the project rename itself to Postgres.
+1. Seeing how many people I run into talking about Postgre
and Post-Gresquel, if there's one advocacy feature I would
suggest for 8.4 it'd be that the project rename itself to Postgres.
Harald Armin Massa wrote:
>>
>> +1. Seeing how many people I run into talking about Postgre
>> and Post-Gresquel, if there's one advocacy feature I would
>> suggest for 8.4 it'd be that the project rename itself to Postgres.
>>
>
> So the slogan for 8.4 could be: The most advanced open source database just
> got easier to pronounce: Postgres.
>
> +1
>
See the archives. It isn't happening.
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG0UvMATb/zqfZUUQRAqEPAJ0f1rTS8o8kQftxorRO7xm4+m9d1gCfTgrz
SMqACiiRSWe3A4teDHyRPZM=
=pd10
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
No -- it has been discussed in the past, and we haven't decided to do
it. That does not mean "it isn't happening".
-Neil
My perspective on the naming question is that if we wanted to do it, we needed
to do it for 8.0 which was when PostgreSQL became much higher profile. We
did seriously evaluate it at that time, but the amount of effort involved
would have held up the release and we decided not to.
It is still the case that changing the name would involve a lot of tedious
effort and hunting down references. Also, we don't have nearly as good
control of the various postgres.* domains as we do of postgresql.*.
(notably, postgres.net belongs to some unknown individual who refuses to sell
it to me).
Overall, I'd say that the advantages of changing the name don't balance the
effort involved in doing so. That's a very qualitative judgement though, and
if there was overwhelming support in the community, *including* several
volunteers to help do the work, I'd certainly re-consider my stance.
Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was bitching
about people mispronouncing "MySQL". So don't assume that shortening our
name would necessarily help ...
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
Do they say "My"?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was
> > bitching about people mispronouncing "MySQL".
>
> Do they say "My"?
As opposed to...?
--
Dan Langille - http://www.langille.org/
Available for hire: http://www.freebsddiary.org/dan_langille.php
You talking about My-SEQUEL instead of the correct My-S-Q-L?
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jha...@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
MyCycle, the database bicycle.
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009
http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE
My Jazz Jukebox: http://www.last.fm/user/leifbk/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
No, it's probably that they didn't say "Their SQL." Only employees of
MySQL AB are allowed to call it "MySQL" ;-).
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'linuxdatabases.info';
http://cbbrowne.com/info/x.html
"KDE isn't a window manager. It *includes* one, but kwm is only one
of *many* components of KDE. And kwm is an *optional* component.
GNOME is the same, except that it doesn't include a wm..."
-- cbbr...@hex.net
Please, not that thread. There was a _reason_ I put the smiley
there! No naming discussion. The ship has sailed, the horse has
left the barn, and Elvis has left the building.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | a...@crankycanuck.ca
Unfortunately reformatting the Internet is a little more painful
than reformatting your hard drive when it gets out of whack.
--Scott Morris
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 01:22:02AM -0700, Ron Mayer wrote:
>> +1. Seeing how many people I run into talking about Postgre
>> and Post-Gresquel, if there's one advocacy feature I would
>> suggest for 8.4 it'd be that the project rename itself to Postgres.
>
> Please, not that thread. There was a _reason_ I put the smiley
> there! No naming discussion. The ship has sailed, the horse has
> left the barn, and Elvis has left the building.
And yes Jim Morrison is really dead.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> A
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG0ugyATb/zqfZUUQRAkOgAJwP7hdhR1C4IOK0GFixkwuiWgw9TACgp9NB
Ea5GYVOX4hKuAk7/0EwT18Q=
=QItq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> It is still the case that changing the name would involve a lot of tedious
> effort and hunting down references. Also, we don't have nearly as good
> control of the various postgres.* domains as we do of postgresql.*.
> (notably, postgres.net belongs to some unknown individual who refuses to
> sell it to me).
Update on this; Aaron got in touch with me and I think we can work something
out *if* we decide to change the name.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
Just musing,
Gavin
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
there is not only postgres.net but country level domains and stuff all
over the place ...
I don't think that name change is buying us anything except _TONS_ of
work for us and other projects (like distributions) and no real gain (I
for myself find neither postgresql nor postgres and more or less
difficult to spell). Imho that makes about as much sense as discussing
if we should use an african or an asian elephant as the logo because
someone finds the smaller/larger ears are nicer to look at ...
Stefan
I agree. I hereby flog myself for even having mentioned the topic as
a joke. My apologies. There are surely more useful ways to spend
contributors' work than in renaming the project. (And if we're going
to open all that up, why not look at TiGres or EleGres or ReGres --
oops, maybe not that one -- or whatever? NOTE to people interested
in exploring that rathole: this suggestion is here as a _reductio ad
absurdum_, not as an idea to be pursued.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | a...@crankycanuck.ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir?
--attr. John Maynard Keynes
> I don't think that name change is buying us anything except _TONS_ of
> work...
Ditto that. Keep PostgreSQL.
* It's google'able. Think of all of the documentation out there which
refers to PostgreSQL. When people start searching for 'postgres'
they'll get virtually nothing.
* Why 'Postgres'? Any marketing effort this large should start from
scratch, and consider all possibilities, not just default to something
barely different for the sake of easing the terrible pronunciation
challenge.
* Maybe some people don't like PostgreSQL, but why assume everyone likes
'Postgres' better. I don't.
--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/
FYI: I never google postgresql, always postgres
> * Why 'Postgres'? Any marketing effort this large should start from
> scratch, and consider all possibilities, not just default to something
> barely different for the sake of easing the terrible pronunciation
> challenge.
I've noticed that it's easier pronouncing 'Postgres' than 'PostgreSQL' in languages other than English (the SQL part gets lost in the translation).
... or is he?
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jha...@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majo...@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> > * Why 'Postgres'? Any marketing effort this large should start from
> > scratch, and consider all possibilities, not just default to something
> > barely different for the sake of easing the terrible pronunciation
> > challenge.
>
> I've noticed that it's easier pronouncing 'Postgres' than 'PostgreSQL'
> in languages other than English (the SQL part gets lost in the
> translation).
Most people are baffled with "postgresql" in spanish. I've had myself
presented as "postgresol developer" before talks. I usually say "our
official name is PostgreSQL but it can be abbreviated as Postgres" and
then consistently use just Postgres all the time.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
My random 2 euro-cents: what if for 8.3 the PGDG declared Postgres to be
an _official_ abbreviation?
Bye,
Chris.
You are missing over 20 million results.
--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
+1
--
Guillaume.
<!-- http://abs.traduc.org/
http://lfs.traduc.org/
http://docs.postgresqlfr.org/ -->
Can't be that important, I always get what I'm after :-)
Robert
Apologies, Andrew, but I think this is a very important topic, and
one that should be addressed.
Josh Berkus wrote:
> My perspective on the naming question is that if we wanted to do it, we needed
> to do it for 8.0 which was when PostgreSQL became much higher profile. We
> did seriously evaluate it at that time, but the amount of effort involved
> would have held up the release and we decided not to.
That's not my recollection. I recall battling to make 7.5 into 8.0, but there was
no real debate about a name change at that time. Since then, however, I've talked to
lots of people about changing the name and found no real objection, only
support, including from most of Core. Even Tom Lane admits it was a mistake:
http://tinyurl.com/2v4fdl
> It is still the case that changing the name would involve a lot of tedious
> effort and hunting down references.
Nobody says we have to go crazy and hunt down and change every single reference.
"Postgres" would simply be the preferred and official name, while "PostgreSQL"
would be the older, alternative spelling.
> Overall, I'd say that the advantages of changing the name don't balance the
> effort involved in doing so. That's a very qualitative judgement though, and
> if there was overwhelming support in the community, *including* several
> volunteers to help do the work, I'd certainly re-consider my stance.
I think the support in the community is there, and I don't see what all the
effort involved is. We simply make it the official name, and migrate things
over as we can, and don't sweat the older stuff. Count me as one volunteer,
at any rate.
> Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was bitching
> about people mispronouncing "MySQL". So don't assume that shortening our
> name would necessarily help ...
I'm pretty sure that "Postgres" would have little to none of the pronunciation
problems that PostgreSQL has. Also, MySQL is a compound, while PostgreSQL
is a portmanteau, from which springs many of our problems.
Ron Peterson notes:
> It's google'able. Think of all of the documentation out there which
> refers to PostgreSQL. When people start searching for 'postgres'
> they'll get virtually nothing.
Sure they do: 5.7 million results, including postgresql.org as the first hit.
"Postgres" is the name the great majority of people use anyway. It's the name
of the OS user and the default database we create alongside template1. And the
nice thing is that it is still a unique word, so it won't get swallowed up in
lots of other words (e.g. "Oracle" and "Firebird")
> Why 'Postgres'? Any marketing effort this large should start from
> scratch, and consider all possibilities, not just default to something
> barely different for the sake of easing the terrible pronunciation
> challenge.
It's not so much a marketing effort as realizing that our current name
is unwieldy, prone to errors in spelling, translation, and pronunciation,
and is quickly changed to "Postgres" by most anyway. Being "barely different"
is a strength, not a weakness. One thing is for sure is that Postgres is really
the only option here, we're not going to rebrand the entire project like
firefox did, if that's your implied suggestion. :)
> Maybe some people don't like PostgreSQL, but why assume everyone likes
> 'Postgres' better. I don't.
What's your alternative?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFG00PevJuQZxSWSsgRA8aTAJsFXIpwajz5kqg3iTf0LNPjm7AtuQCggEJF
oYO2hW3I5lQNYkrlPWG3VNc=
=W+Xy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
PostgreSQL is a *suitcase*?
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
an overcoat
MySqueal?
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby dec...@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
And note that this is not much different than today - where
it seems there already are 2 "official" names. I see many
people from Core saying it's OK to call it "postgres".
In spoken usage at conferences, sales meetings it seems
to be 90% "Postgres", some "PostgreS S.Q.L." and some
"Postgre Sequel" (after all - that's what the current
capitalization implies) and "postgre" - and I'd say a
small minority of spoken usage saying "Postgres QL".
If one simply makes "Postgres" the "prefered official name"
and "PostgreSQL" the "accepted alternative name" it seems
no worse than the current practice. And with some regular
expression passes over parts of the web site it seems
it'd quickly get better than the current state of 2 official
and one common unofficial names.
>> That's a very qualitative judgement though, and
>> if there was overwhelming support in the community
I think the change would be nice - just so that many
presentations don't need to spend time discussing
this point - but then again I've recently been avoiding
the topic in sales calls and meetings with exec
management by saying it's built on a database
"similar to EnterpriseDB". :-)
> Sure they do: 5.7 million results, including postgresql.org as the
> first hit. "Postgres" is the name the great majority of people use
> anyway.
5.7 million is not "virtually nothing", but you can't say the "great
majority" of people use the term "postgres" when "postgresql" returns 27
million hits. Call me daft, but I prefer to increase my odds of finding
relevant results by a factor of four or more.
> It's not so much a marketing effort as realizing that our current name
> is unwieldy, prone to errors in spelling, translation, and pronunciation,
> and is quickly changed to "Postgres" by most anyway.
Why do you say it is changed to Postgres by most? Google, at least,
seems to disagree. That said, I will say that I have run across a fair
number of people, most of whom know little or nothing about PostgreSQL,
who tend to use the term "Postgres". Considering that PostgreSQL has
been the official name for quite some time, it is certainly noteworthy
that people still gravitate to another name.
> > Maybe some people don't like PostgreSQL, but why assume everyone
> > likes 'Postgres' better. I don't.
> What's your alternative?
I like the status quo. If I _were_ going to change the name, I would
wait until a major point release; and for the purpose of not appearing
fickle, I'd try to market the name change with a better slogan than
"PostgreSQL is now now Postgres - Because PostgreSQL is hard to spell!"
I think changing the name of a product is a really big deal, and it
needs to be tied to something significant, or it appears flighty, and
makes the project seem a little untethered.
I also think Postgres sounds too much like Ingres. Nothing against
Ingres or PostgreSQL's heritage, but it sounds anachronistic to me.
That said, there are a lot of people who have put a lot more into
PostgreSQL than I have, and I would certainly defer to their opinion on
this.
--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
The google hits argument is no reason not to change the name. There will
*always* be more hits for PostgreSQL as long as that's the name that's
on our website, etc. So what? The fact that there's a competing term
that's popular enough to stand on it's own tells me we already have a
problem.
> > > Maybe some people don't like PostgreSQL, but why assume everyone
> > > likes 'Postgres' better. I don't.
>
> > What's your alternative?
>
> I like the status quo. If I _were_ going to change the name, I would
> wait until a major point release; and for the purpose of not appearing
> fickle, I'd try to market the name change with a better slogan than
> "PostgreSQL is now now Postgres - Because PostgreSQL is hard to spell!"
Folks, please stop talking about spelling, because that's *not* the
issue here at all. If it was, we'd just call the database asdf (or aoeu
for dvorak users).
This has always been about pronunciation. How to pronounce the name is
probably one of the most common questions I get... how can people think
that isn't hurting advocacy efforts?
> I think changing the name of a product is a really big deal, and it
> needs to be tied to something significant, or it appears flighty, and
> makes the project seem a little untethered.
I think we can just as easily make the change without any real fanfare
at all. I've gotten tired of using my real name in the PostgreSQL world
(because everywhere else I'm known by my nickname), so I've been slowly
migrating to not using my real name. I bet until recently (when I
changed the name part of my email address) very few people noticed. Even
with that change, no one has asked me about it yet. In the case of
PostgreSQL->Postgres, we're talking about dropping 2 letters and
changing the case of one, which is very minor. I see no reason why we
can't just silently make the change and let it be.
> I also think Postgres sounds too much like Ingres. Nothing against
> Ingres or PostgreSQL's heritage, but it sounds anachronistic to me.
If anything I think it might lend more credence to Ingres, but I'm not
terribly worried about that. Afterall, Postgres was created with the
idea of improving the ideas that were the foundation of Ingres.
I'm inclined to agree. For the most part we could all just slowly change
things to 'Postgres'. I doubt anyone would really notice, except we'd
get fewer people getting it wrong!
> I've gotten tired of using my real name in the PostgreSQL world
> (because everywhere else I'm known by my nickname), so I've been slowly
> migrating to not using my real name. I bet until recently (when I
> changed the name part of my email address) very few people noticed. Even
> with that change, no one has asked me about it yet.
If it makes you feel any better I've been meaning to, just haven't
gotten round to it yet :-).
/D
How about a vote?
How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0' reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work involved out of the debate for the moment)?
Robert
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
I vote we just make the change without any fuss, ASAP. But I'll take
any kind of change over sticking with PostgreSQL.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby dec...@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
Shhh! You're hurting my argument! :P
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby dec...@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
I don't.
--
Guillaume.
<!-- http://abs.traduc.org/
http://lfs.traduc.org/
http://docs.postgresqlfr.org/ -->
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> How about a vote?
I vote we just make the change without any fuss, ASAP.
+1
I agree with the name change. I'm not sure why delay to 9.0 though;
doing it for 8.3 is fine.
Whether 8.3 will actually be 9.0 is another question.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> Whether 8.3 will actually be 9.0 is another question.
No, it's not. It's possible that 8.4 will end up being 9.0, but 8.5 seems
more likely. There's no reason to be eager about it ... once we get to 10.0,
we give the package builders fits.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
Well, if we're playing the voting game:
+1
/D
+1
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jha...@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
+1 -- I think we should make the name change, but I don't have any
strong preference about when we ought to do it (now, for 8.3, for 8.4,
etc -- I wouldn't necessarily want to wait for some far-off theoretical
9.0 release).
-Neil
> How about a vote?
>
> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> involved out of the debate for the moment)?
+1
I agree with doing it without any fanfare.
Ray.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
r...@iol.ie
---------------------------------------------------------------
+1
> I agree with doing it without any fanfare.
I wonder.
Wouldn't it be a good marketing move to put a "vote for a name change" on the website's front page? The idea would be to make announcements all over the place like slashdot, digg etc. and asking the average joe for his input. You know the saying, "there's no such thing as bad press".
Thoughts?
Robert
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com
+1
I wonder.
Thoughts?
Robert
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
On 8/28/07, Robert Bernier <robert....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:23:17PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
> > > How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> > > reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> > > involved out of the debate for the moment)?
First, discussing this without reference to the work it would cause
and such like is foolish. You don't commit to doing something only
because it would be a nice idea; you also do it recognising that
spending the time doing that thing entails you don't have other time
for other things you might like. So how much work it might be is a
_critical piece of information_ for deciding what you should do. The
glib responses in this thread suggest to me that at least some people
haven't worked through that. Moreover,
> Wouldn't it be a good marketing move to put a "vote for a name
> change" on the website's front page? The idea would be to make
> announcements all over the place like slashdot, digg etc. and
> asking the average joe for his input. You know the saying, "there's
> no such thing as bad press".
this strikes me as a plan to get all manner of people all over the
Net -- many of whom maybe hate Postgres -- to come and suggest that
_other_ people do work for a cosmetic change. I also don't believe
that claim that there's no such thing as bad press. If you disagree,
ask the engineers of the Corvair.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | a...@crankycanuck.ca
The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens."
--Bruce Schneier
Hello,
Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).
Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
that we may do so.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG1GyzATb/zqfZUUQRAsSTAJ9tO9G8mXmmVjyxEEih5FWVQqrm4ACffgs8
rZ2ljARoGxKVigtndKJnCps=
=om6H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This sounds like basing a decision on getting the most benefit with the least amount of work.
I respectfully counter your argument by suggesting that in this matter the effort, although significant, is justified by the benefits.
I argue that the exercise of debating and, if it comes to pass, implementation has benefits that far outweighs the effort.
> this strikes me as a plan to get all manner of people all over the
> Net -- many of whom maybe hate Postgres -- to come and suggest that
> _other_ people do work for a cosmetic change.
And I really do believe it when I say that there's no such thing as bad press
> I also don't believe
> that claim that there's no such thing as bad press. If you disagree,
> ask the engineers of the Corvair.
Comments from the marketing / sales crowd.... yes that includes you too Rich?
Robert
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
First, thanks for letting us know this before people get too settled on
something :) At least those of us who missed it last time(s)...
Second, this makes my own vote much easier: a clear -1 on the change
(unless cmd would be donating that name+domains to the pg fund or
something, but given that you didn't suggest that I don't expect that to
happen)
//Magnus
Notice that Josh owns postgresINC.com/net/org I am still a +1
regardless of that. While Josh could change his name, he would have to
balance the loss of the CommandPrompt collateral that he has already
garnered. It is not as simple a change as PostgreSQl to Postgres.
Regardless, even if Josh changes the company name, I believe that the
benefits far outweigh that potential negative and we should move
forward.
Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mag...@hagander.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:47 PM
To: Joshua D. Drake
Cc: Derek Rodner; Robert Bernier; pgsql-a...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
PostgreSQL)
//Magnus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
0 (abstain)
While I do think that 'Postgres' has advantages over 'PostgreSQL',
I don't think we should drop PostgreSQL. Something which is
defacto already happening, as usually the default database is
'postgres', user is 'postgres' and so on. At the same time I wouldn't
want package maintainers to change package name from 'postgresql'
to 'postgres' [again]. I wouldn't want Sun to need to update brochures
that they support Postgres (formerly known as PostgreSQL).
Personally I would like to use names 'PostgreSQL Relational Database
Managament System', short form: Postgres with PostgreSQL as an
acceptable, though deprecated, alternative.
Regards,
Dawid
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
> > disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
> > owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).
Would it possible for you to state your 'official' position on the various outcomes that this current debate could take?
Robert
Joshua D. Drake wrote:Hello, Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org). Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility that we may do so.First, thanks for letting us know this before people get too settled on something :) At least those of us who missed it last time(s)... Second, this makes my own vote much easier: a clear -1 on the change (unless cmd would be donating that name+domains to the pg fund or something, but given that you didn't suggest that I don't expect that to happen)
well I already stated earlier that I don't really like that change so -1
here too ...
Stefan
Robert Bernier wrote:
> JD,
>
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
>>> disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
>>> owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).
>
>
> Would it possible for you to state your 'official' position on the various outcomes that this current debate could take?
Color me dense, but "what?", do you mean do I think the project should
change its name or not?
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Robert
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majo...@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG1HFuATb/zqfZUUQRAlgAAJ0X9MJcn+PcOpjm8uVxvhe6uucpZgCcCAC8
5N2baggyRuL/tdrYgf1DWV8=
=JFVp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
Brian,
I respectfully disagree. It can’t just be the maintainers that make the decision. In reality, there should be a marketing board for Postgres and those folks should make the decision in coordination with all parties involved including those who would have to change doc, those who would have to change code, etc. I know advocacy was supposed to be the marketing-like group, but it is too big of a group with too many opinions that don’t matter, mine included.
What we should do (here comes my marketing speak) is talk to those who matter, USERS. There is an old saying in marketing: Your opinion, though interesting, is irrelevant. The reality is that we are all on the “inside” and are too jaded. If PostgreSQL were a company, we would talk to analysts, customers, prospects, etc. and make a decision based on that.
Sorry, went a little corporate there…
Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
From: Brian Hurt [mailto:bh...@janestcapital.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007
2:52 PM
To: Magnus Hagander
Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Derek Rodner; Robert Bernier;
pgsql-a...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The
naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
Magnus Hagander wrote:
You say that the name change is significant to you. What does that mean?
I'm asking about all those wonderfull legal and business issues that must be dealt with if this hits the proverbial fan vis a vis Command Prompt and the community at large.
Robert
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
Robert Bernier wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 15:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Color me dense, but "what?", do you mean do I think the project should
>> change its name or not?
>
> You say that the name change is significant to you. What does that mean?
I still don't understand what you are asking. I never said it was
significant to me, I said:
Hello,
Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).
Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
that we may do so.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> I'm asking about all those wonderfull legal and business issues that must be dealt with if this hits the proverbial fan vis a vis Command Prompt and the community at large.
>
> Robert
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG1HQVATb/zqfZUUQRAqaBAKCgIn2PH0tmklZTBfB6lqUWDTfllgCfaymj
CT3z4gHxqRab4shQ3Qr3Mu8=
=H+/d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
imho this decision is one that -core has to take in the end
>
>
>
> What we should do (here comes my marketing speak) is talk to those who
> matter, USERS. There is an old saying in marketing: Your opinion,
> though interesting, is irrelevant. The reality is that we are all on
> the “inside” and are too jaded. If PostgreSQL were a company, we would
> talk to analysts, customers, prospects, etc. and make a decision based
> on that.
First PostgreSQL is not a company it is a vital, large and successful
OSS project ...
Second the natural extension of that thought is that in the future we
will simply have users vote on what feature they want and have an "end
user board" that decides what features the developers have to implement ?
Stefan
Gavin
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
From what I understand, he also owns the "company name" "postgres, inc"
for whatever that means in the US system.
>> regardless of that. While Josh could change his name, he would have to
>> balance the loss of the CommandPrompt collateral that he has already
>> garnered. It is not as simple a change as PostgreSQl to Postgres.
No. And he'd also have to balance the badwill he'd get from the
community over it. Which explains why he hasn't changed already :-P
>> Regardless, even if Josh changes the company name, I believe that the
>> benefits far outweigh that potential negative and we should move
>> forward.
Gavin M. Roy wrote:
> Ditto, I don't see the difference between that and Marc's PostgreSQL
> Inc (pgsql.com)
Yeah. And you think the presence of PostgreSQL Inc isn't a problem
today? No offense to Marc, both he and PostgreSQL Inc has done a lot of
good things, but it certainly does *not* help the community to have a
company named the same way as our OSS product that claims 7.4 has just
been released and nothing has happened with us since 7.4.
//Magnus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
If you own the name and you mention it then it's a significant issue. Otherwise...
Robert
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
I would be interested to see if any other open source projects do it.
That way you don't go implementing Klingon as a supported language when
everyone is really developing in Wookie these days.
The reality, though, is that (with the exception of me, sort of) the
developers of PostgreSQL are actually the end users, so we sort of do it
anyway.
Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [mailto:ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:11 PM
To: Derek Rodner
Cc: Brian Hurt; Magnus Hagander; Joshua D. Drake; Robert Bernier;
pgsql-a...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
PostgreSQL)
Stefan
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
I think what Robert is asking is:
If PostgreSQL becomes Postgres, do you intend to change Command Prompt
to Postgres, Inc.?
Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-advo...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-advo...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D.
Drake
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:14 PM
To: Robert Bernier
Cc: pgsql-a...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
PostgreSQL)
Derek Rodner wrote:
> Josh,
>
> I think what Robert is asking is:
>
> If PostgreSQL becomes Postgres, do you intend to change Command Prompt
> to Postgres, Inc.?
To which I have answer now three times :):
Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
that we may do so.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG1HYxATb/zqfZUUQRAvbuAJ4vaj89BM+2c6a6+K9zaj4roRz/mwCfXNCn
0QpyRIHo2g7TfWLenkXU9Jg=
=/EKX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
> Regardless, even if Josh changes the company name, I believe that the
> benefits far outweigh that potential negative and we should move
> forward.
You say that because you weren't around when PostgreSQL, Inc. was active.
There was a time when the *first* question I had to answer at a booth was
to explain that we were not PostgreSQL, Inc. I don't want to go back to
that time.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
http://www.bsdcertification.org/
They've done extensive international polling and analysis of the BSD community developing worldwide systems adminstration standards.
Robert
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> The google hits argument is no reason not to change the name.
It is. When people start searching for information using the term
"postgres" they will be missing out on the vast majority of available
information for years.
It's also an argument against the OP's assertion that most people use
the name "Postgres" rather than "PostgreSQL".
> Folks, please stop talking about spelling, because that's *not* the
> issue here at all.
I was merely poking a little fun with a caricature, but OK: "PostgreSQL
is now Postgres! - Because we don't know how to pronounce PostgreSQL!"
IMHO, that still makes PostgreSQL advocacy efforts sound rather amateur.
I don't think projects as large and important and PostgreSQL should be
rebranded without devoting serious attention to the details, market
perception, etc.
> I see no reason why we can't just silently make the change and let it
> be.
Because it's not a small matter. Maybe PostgreSQL never should have
been the name, but it happened, time has passed, and we're in a
different place now.
I'm really not that opposed to changing the name, but I think this
effort is being promoted too glibly; without enough serious
consideration given to the consequences. "Forget about the effort",
"forget about google", "let's vote on slashdot", etc.
If this were 9.0, and there were a big reason for this to be 9.0, that
might be a good time for a name change. I just disagree that this
can/should be done "silently" without any fanfare and with no real
justification other than helping the tongue tied. No one knows how to
pronounce "Linux" either - is that hurting adoption?
Whatever my little opinion might be, though, I still think the big dogs
should decide this.
--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Derek,
>
>> Regardless, even if Josh changes the company name, I believe that the
>> benefits far outweigh that potential negative and we should move
>> forward.
>
> You say that because you weren't around when PostgreSQL, Inc. was active.
> There was a time when the *first* question I had to answer at a booth was
> to explain that we were not PostgreSQL, Inc. I don't want to go back to
> that time.
Nor do I. However, that was a different time and a time when PostgreSQL
was barely known, which is certainly not the case now.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG1He1ATb/zqfZUUQRAo9BAJ0TL6whnVxPp2cQ3NDmP/7CbljxqACgoHeS
XO2loyRnmoPnYVKyBjE/P+M=
=hBEA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I am unaware of a better mechanism by which one decides which work to
do. The important thing is what "most benefit" means; and that turns
out to be hard to unpack.
> I respectfully counter your argument by suggesting that in this
> matter the effort, although significant, is justified by the
> benefits.
So what are they? That people can pronounce the name more easily?
This discussion heaves into sight every now and then (this time, much
to my chagrin, it's my fault. I'll know better than to make bad
jokes in public in the future!). I agree that the name is
unfortunate. But I just say "Postgres" most of the time, and people
seem to know what I'm taking about -- and yet no Official Changing of
Names has happened.
The thing is, I keep hearing claims that the name is a problem
significant enough to do work to change it. But why is it a problem?
Marketing, apparently. Ok, then, we need some market research. I
don't believe that the name itself is the biggest barrier -- just
that the name is not "Oracle". If someone has _data_ (not a war
story about the amusing last mispronunciation heard), I'd like to see
it.
> I argue that the exercise of debating and, if it comes to pass,
> implementation has benefits that far outweighs the effort.
How do you know that? So far, I have seen no serious discussion of
what the costs of a name change might be, or what the benefits could
be were we to adopt something else. There _will_ be confusion, work
for package maintainers, nasty upgrade problems with oldbies who say,
"Oh, I don't want Postgres; I want the SQL-engine one," and edits to
the manual. Old links might break. Marketing materials would need
to be reprinted (the project just bought a large trade-show banner,
for instance; we throw it away under this plan). Logos need
re-designing. These aren't free activities: they require at least
time, and maybe cash money too. It seems to me that something more
concrete than, "It won't cost much, and it'll have lotsa big
benefits," is needed as an argument to back it up.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | a...@crankycanuck.ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
--Alexander Hamilton
Many companies and govt agencies work only hard enough that they can say
something was accomplished. It speaks of environment that is bereft of
resources and must make do with what they have i.e. they lack investment
resourcess
>
> > I respectfully counter your argument by suggesting that in this
> > matter the effort, although significant, is justified by the
> > benefits.
>
> So what are they?
Community participation. Constructive debate makes for a community with a more
people skilled membership.
The name change question is worthy of a discussion ... an administrative
discussion... with pros and cons in the context of becoming better known in
the world, And then a decision is made. For the record; although I believe in
the name change I still have yet to learn the full cost. I don't think
anybody does for that matter. We need to sit down and calculate the manhours
and the required skillset.
Don't underestimate language: No disrespect but I find that unilingual
speakers lack the perspective to appreciate the needs of those outside their
culture. I remind you that the largest and most vibrant segment of the
PostgreSQL community doesn't even speak English (sic Japan).
> > I argue that the exercise of debating and, if it comes to pass,
> > implementation has benefits that far outweighs the effort.
>
> How do you know that?
It's an axiom that practice makes perfect. Debating sharpens people's skills
in identifying the real decision making issues.
> So far, I have seen no serious discussion of
> what the costs of a name change might be, or what the benefits could
> be were we to adopt something else.
I agree. A definite number crunching exercise.
Successful projects typically run in cycles of three.
One example of taking a big investment risk is General Motors. They went
through three failed design teams before they found one that agreed with
senior management that it was possible to make aluminum engines and then did
it.
Another car example is the policy that the Japanese car mfg followed by hiring
graduate engineers to assume the positions that union blue collar workers
were doing in North America. They believed that there was more profit in
valuing quality than what the big American car mfg were (and I remember when
the big five laughed at the Japanese approach too).
> There _will_ be confusion, work
> for package maintainers, nasty upgrade problems...
yup. lots of work but still worth the effort of asking the question
If we were going to do it, I might suggest to not do it at release time, lest
people get the impression that the rename should signify some new level of
instability.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} Postgres
Uh, actually no, at least in the past. Back in 1996 when we chose
PostgreSQL over Postgres, the core group didn't want PostgreSQL for
reasons mentioned (see
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/great_steps.pdf, slide 22ff). The
bottom line in that case is that the user community chose the name, even
though core thought it would lead to the problems we have found,
including the pronouncability issue. (The "SQL" was added to highlight
that we now had SQL, rather than QUEL, so at the time there was a
purpose for the "SQL", but obviously not now, i.e. everyone knows we
have SQL.)
Off topic, this highlights something I have said privately to folks but
not as much publicly. Core tries to do as little as possible,
particularly so non-core feel as involved in the project as core. Core
officially only handle discipline issues and cases where a company needs
to speak to the project privately. We also can break a vote tie. In
almost every other case, our sway is only as strong as our public
arguments in email threads. This style has served our community well
and hopefully will continue indefinitely.
(FYI, a few weeks ago David Fetter stated I had less sway than in the
past. I should have replied that I hope I always hold no sway. I and
other core members should never hold any special sway in discussions
except based on the validity of our opinions and judgement stated in the
discussion, i.e. not because we are core members.)
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +