Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On 04/11/2016 11:04 AM, Josh berkus wrote:

> For that reason, I would be strongly opposed to adopting a "cute name"
> scheme for Postgres.
>

I am not arguing against your logic, just stating what I run into.

>
> Correct, they are used internally only.
>

Right and I am not suggesting that we migrate to a policy where we
reference only (or even primarily) the "cute name".

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                         +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.