nomenclature

Hi Lee

On Jan 16, 2004, at 8:09 PM, Lee Kindness wrote:

With the various paths, service names, config files and environment
variables PostgreSQL appears to have a multiple-personality
disorder... Is it:

postgresql (/etc/init.d/postgresql, postgresql.conf),
or postmaster (main postmaster process),
or postgres (postgres user),
or pgsql (/var/lib/pgsql),
or psql (psql SQL terminal),
or pg (PG* environment variables, pg_* files)?

I guess the point of this email is to point out the current
proliferation of terms is not user friendly. Any plans/interest in
standardisation?

Don't forget pl/pgsql! :)

In my way of thinking, different things should have different names,
which is what is going on here. Two of these are more or less
user-customizable: the user who owns the database cluster, and the
directory where the cluster and files are usually stored. However, the
others are distinct, as you've clearly pointed out. They have different
names because they are different.

I too was a little confused when starting out with PostgreSQL as to
what the difference was between some of these things, but they need
different names so people can distinguish between them.

However, this is compounded by the fact that I see (and have probably
used) PostgreSQL, postgres, or pgsql all to refer to the whole thing in
general. Then you've got people coming up with their own, such as
Postgress, and Postgrees, two of which I've seen bandied about
recently. But again, there needs to be names to refer to these
different things.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com

I too was a little confused when starting out with PostgreSQL as to
what the difference was between some of these things, but they need
different names so people can distinguish between them.

You make a good point, and I think that's easier for developers to work
with.

However, why do no other OSS projects use different names like that?
"Postmaster" is particularly confusing for those new to PostgreSQL,
since it's not clear that it belongs to PostgreSQL, and, indeed, seems
more like a clever name for an MTA.

If you look at apache, and mysql, they seem to be consistant (Red Hat
apparently renames apache to httpd, however that is just generalizing
the name, not making a new one). Simpler daemons tend to be consistant
(like ftp, etc), but those don't really count because there aren't very
many parts. MTAs usually have their own name, but sometimes steal the
"sendmail" name. Bind calls itself named (another general name). Samba
has sbmd.

I can't point to any OSS project that completely renames its parts. I
think a shortened version of the name makes sense (in this case
"postgres" works well, but so does "pgsql"), and other projects do
similar things. "Psql" for the client and "postmaster" for the daemon
are the ones that really confuse people, I think.

Now, is it worth changing? I doubt it. It doesn't take long to figure
out, and would certainly cause confusion on the mailing lists. And, as
you pointed out, it helps developers distinguish the parts, and maybe
adds a little character to the software. Unless there's some kind of
advocacy issue (i.e. people are avoiding the database because of
perception), I can't think of much reason.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

On Jan 16, 2004, at 9:39 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:

I can't point to any OSS project that completely renames its parts. I
think a shortened version of the name makes sense (in this case
"postgres" works well, but so does "pgsql"), and other projects do
similar things. "Psql" for the client and "postmaster" for the daemon
are the ones that really confuse people, I think.

I'd agree with you there. I think they may be confusing for two
different reasons: postmaster because there's no obvious connection
(besides POSTmaster and POSTgreSQL), and psql because it's so close to
pgsql and pl/pgsql. People may not realize psql is just one client (of
other possible clients). They think it's tied much more closely to
PostgreSQL than it actually is. (Well, it is packaged with the whole
shebang and it can do a lot.) This may be one of the reasons for the
discussions regarding the psql slash commands (e.g., \d). They may
think it's just an SQL interface to the database, when it's more than
that. In a way it's like saying phppgadmin shouldn't have buttons
because it's not SQL-like enough :) But I digress.

Now, is it worth changing? I doubt it. It doesn't take long to figure
out, and would certainly cause confusion on the mailing lists. And, as
you pointed out, it helps developers distinguish the parts, and maybe
adds a little character to the software. Unless there's some kind of
advocacy issue (i.e. people are avoiding the database because of
perception), I can't think of much reason.

I agree.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Jeff Davis wrote:

I can't point to any OSS project that completely renames its parts. I
think a shortened version of the name makes sense (in this case
"postgres" works well, but so does "pgsql"), and other projects do
similar things. "Psql" for the client and "postmaster" for the daemon
are the ones that really confuse people, I think.

I don't know, doesn't one of the databases out there use 'monitor' as
their equivalent to psql?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Michael Glaesemann wrote:

On Jan 16, 2004, at 9:39 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:

I can't point to any OSS project that completely renames its parts. I
think a shortened version of the name makes sense (in this case
"postgres" works well, but so does "pgsql"), and other projects do
similar things. "Psql" for the client and "postmaster" for the daemon
are the ones that really confuse people, I think.

I'd agree with you there. I think they may be confusing for two
different reasons: postmaster because there's no obvious connection
(besides POSTmaster and POSTgreSQL)

This one I have to agree with also ... 'postmaster' always makes me think
of the mail system ... *but* ... for those that are dealing with the
database server, and who many never have seen a mail system in their life,
the same may not be true ...

The funny thing is that the "postmaster" doesn't really do anything, its
the postgres process that does all the work ... if you think about it, the
"postmaster" is actually aptly named, since it is the process that sorts
out the incoming connections and assigns them to backend processes ...
just like the postmaster does with your mail ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Michael Glaesemann wrote:

On Jan 16, 2004, at 9:39 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:

I can't point to any OSS project that completely renames its parts. I
think a shortened version of the name makes sense (in this case
"postgres" works well, but so does "pgsql"), and other projects do
similar things. "Psql" for the client and "postmaster" for the daemon
are the ones that really confuse people, I think.

I'd agree with you there. I think they may be confusing for two
different reasons: postmaster because there's no obvious connection
(besides POSTmaster and POSTgreSQL)

This one I have to agree with also ... 'postmaster' always makes me think
of the mail system ... *but* ... for those that are dealing with the
database server, and who many never have seen a mail system in their life,
the same may not be true ...

In all honesty, when I first installed Linux system with Postgresql I
couldn't help but wonder why I had two different MTA's.

The funny thing is that the "postmaster" doesn't really do anything, its
the postgres process that does all the work ... if you think about it, the
"postmaster" is actually aptly named, since it is the process that sorts
out the incoming connections and assigns them to backend processes ...
just like the postmaster does with your mail ...

Perhaps postgresd, postgresqld, or pg_daemon might be a little more
intuitive?

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Thomas Swan wrote:

Perhaps postgresd, postgresqld, or pg_daemon might be a little more
intuitive?

I think at this late stage in the game (almost 10 years), changing could
be a bit difficult and confusing, no? :) I'd go with something like
pgsqld myself though, keeps it short ... or we could go even shorter with
just pgd ...

But, I'm not, in any stretch of the imagination, advocating for change on
this ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Marc G. Fournier writes:

I think at this late stage in the game (almost 10 years), changing could
be a bit difficult and confusing, no? :) I'd go with something like
pgsqld myself though, keeps it short ... or we could go even shorter with
just pgd ...

But, I'm not, in any stretch of the imagination, advocating for change on
this ...

If it's ever going to happen then the likely place would be in a Linux
distribution or a re-package of PostgreSQL. I'm sure no one would be
suprised if Red Hat had a new release with dbd, ~db, sql (or keeping
PostgreSQL in it pgsqld, ~pgsql, pgsql)...

Indeed a lot of the current inconsistencies are packaging issues...

L.

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Thomas Swan wrote:

Perhaps postgresd, postgresqld, or pg_daemon might be a little more
intuitive?

I think at this late stage in the game (almost 10 years), changing could
be a bit difficult and confusing, no? :) I'd go with something like
pgsqld myself though, keeps it short ... or we could go even shorter with
just pgd ...

But, I'm not, in any stretch of the imagination, advocating for change on
this ...

Agreed, to change it would be a bit insane. Although a little insanity
often surrounds a major version release...

I just thought the anecdote of confusing it for an MTA was a little funny.

Thomas

Thomas Swan wrote:

I just thought the anecdote of confusing it for an MTA was a little funny.

Funny yes, but unfortunatly all too common for newbies I think.

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:

if you think about it, the "postmaster" is actually aptly named,
since it is the process that sorts out the incoming connections and
assigns them to backend processes ... just like the postmaster does
with your mail ...

Right, hence the witty pun :-)

IMHO this whole debate is largely academic: it really wouldn't be
practical to start renaming components at this point, whether they are
perfectly named or not.

-Neil