Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly

    Hi there,

> It's interesting to know what people's opinions are, and I don't feel
> the desire for a simpler name to be wrong.
> However, we all have taken a *lot* of time and effort to get the name
> "PostgreSQL" recognised, and we should continue on doing this.  Nowdays
> I'm finding it very unusual to see new articles and publications going
> online and getting it wrong, meaning that although there are legacy
> documents out there refering to "Postgres", most of the new stuff online
> is calling it the proper "PostgreSQL".

    I can't agree more with you. I do think that some people being
confused about saying "PostgreSQL" is NOT enough reason to change a name
that, as you said, was recognised by means of hard work. That's also why I
asked if this was really under discussion. The "desired", to be more
clear, referred to a name that would solve this "issue", and not
substitute the present name. Anyway, the problem saying PostgreSQL does
exist. Someone even mentioned "PostgresQL", a name that isn't really to my
taste. :-)


> Lets stick with "PostgreSQL", simply because we are a solid project with
> a good foundation, and we don't need to introduce uncertainties in
> people's minds by changing the "Official" name of our project every few
> years.  "PostgreSQL" works, people recognise it, and its our brand
> alone.  :)

    Well said, and I'm glad to see that even the developers gave their
opinions on the subject. This kind of talk is usually restricted to people
without envolvement with the related project.


    []'s
    Ricardo.