8.5 vs. 9.0

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

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.

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 :-)

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> 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 UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

2010/1/21 Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>

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.

I feel sorry for 8.5 now. It had such high hopes of becoming a proper
version.

So, does this mean the next alpha/beta will be named 9.0 too?

Thom

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> 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 named 9.0 too?

9.0alpha4

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

-----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 time
to do it.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001210726
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAktYR90ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjDmACfVud6mJMRDX5poG1c+Y+z4UYw
jUIAnR9+OaIHNDwT3ZhiCivMF3skGJwn
=fWzV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 12:26 +0000, 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://www.CommandPrompt.com
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> 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 time.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-11/msg00109.php

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

* Dave Page (dpage@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

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:

* Dave Page (dpage@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.com

On tor, 2010-01-21 at 10:36 +0000, 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"

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

On tor, 2010-01-21 at 10:36 +0000, 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

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

"Bullwinkle" (This time for sure!)

LOL

But that trick never works...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7mmrF-4rUE

-Kevin

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/

-----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 remains. Call
it the 900 pound gorilla in a room full of elephants. I know
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.

It's really in the best interests of the project to make the
change as soon as possible, and undo the mistake of changing
it from Postgres in the first place. Changing it to coincide
with the interest bounce we'll get from the Oracle/MySQL
situation seems a no-brainer from an advocacy perspective.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001211135
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAktYgw0ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjgSwCghMphV61CIRDBGGscItZxvVQ9
E54AnjGqqYuXewjmwszaXX0sP7oWlg68
=DQfT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> 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 problem. Just pronounce the "QL" in
PostgreSQL the same way you do the "b" in subtle and have done with
it. I'm not for changing the spelling of either one.

-Kevin

2010/1/21 Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>:

-----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 remains. Call
it the 900 pound gorilla in a room full of elephants. I know
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.

it is your opinion - not my. I thing, so is nonsense returning to
closed chapters.

Regards
Pavel

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> 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 the problem remains. Call
it the 900 pound gorilla in a room full of elephants. I know
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.

it is your opinion - not my. I thing, so is nonsense returning to
closed chapters.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

As far as I can see, there is absolutely zero reason to care about
whether the product is called Postgres or PostgreSQL. If it were
called WeGrindUpTheBonesOfSmallChildrenSQL, maybe a change would be
worth considering. As it is, I submit that the product name is not on
in the top 10,000 things we should be worried about fixing, even if
there were a consensus that it were a good idea (which there isn't)
and even if -core had not already made a decision on this point (which
they have). What I think we SHOULD be worrying about right now is
getting 9.0 out the door, and I am 100% opposed to letting ourselves
getting sucked into this or any other discussion which is likely to
make that take longer than it likely already will.

...Robert

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 would be
worth considering.

And where do you think baby powder comes from? Sheesh.

As it is, I submit that the product name is not on
in the top 10,000 things we should be worried about fixing, even if
there were a consensus that it were a good idea (which there isn't)
and even if -core had not already made a decision on this point (which
they have). What I think we SHOULD be worrying about right now is
getting 9.0 out the door, and I am 100% opposed to letting ourselves
getting sucked into this or any other discussion which is likely to
make that take longer than it likely already will.

+1

David

Le 21/01/2010 11:57, Dave Page a �crit :

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> 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.

Just saw this. Should we change every 8.5 with 9.0 in pgAdmin's code?
That's not a hard work, but it would probably be better to do that right
now.

--
Guillaume.
http://www.postgresqlfr.org
http://dalibo.com

On 1/21/10, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:

Le 21/01/2010 11:57, Dave Page a écrit :

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> 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.

Just saw this. Should we change every 8.5 with 9.0 in pgAdmin's code?
That's not a hard work, but it would probably be better to do that right
now.

I quite enjoy finding those old references - it's a weird reminder of
history (and of course, it makes no difference to the operation of the
code) :-)

Le 21/01/2010 20:31, Dave Page a �crit :

On 1/21/10, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:

Le 21/01/2010 11:57, Dave Page a �crit :

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> 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.

Just saw this. Should we change every 8.5 with 9.0 in pgAdmin's code?
That's not a hard work, but it would probably be better to do that right
now.

I quite enjoy finding those old references - it's a weird reminder of
history (and of course, it makes no difference to the operation of the
code) :-)

Sure.

--
Guillaume.
http://www.postgresqlfr.org
http://dalibo.com

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 release shall be....

Wait for it....

9.0.

darn, looks like PostgreSQL developers can only count to 4 :)

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 decided that the next release shall be....

Wait for it....

9.0.

darn, looks like PostgreSQL developers can only count to 4 :)

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-6-5.html

:)

Stefan

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~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

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

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Andrew Chernow <ac@esilo.com> 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 Open Source Software Center

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). This delay is to avoid creating needless merge problems for
as-yet-unapplied patches.

regards, tom lane

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 the next release shall be....

Wait for it....

9.0.

Care to shed some light on what features (yes, we users care about features) warrant this major version-bump? Is there a link somewhere?

--
Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak@officenet.no>
Senior Software Developer / CTO
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
OfficeNet AS | The most difficult thing in the world is to |
Rosenholmveien 25 | know how to do a thing and to watch |
1414 Trollåsen | somebody else doing it wrong, without |
NORWAY | comment. |
| |
Tlf: +47 24 15 38 90 | |
Fax: +47 24 15 38 91 | |
Mobile: +47 909 56 963 | |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

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 following a lenghty debate lasting
literally a few minutes decided that the next release shall be....

Wait for it....

9.0.

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 hit the
tree, the release number would go to 9.0.

Both are in the tree.

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893

"Larry Rosenman" <ler@lerctr.org> 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 hit the
tree, the release number would go to 9.0.

Yeah. The question of "when do we call it 9.0" has come up multiple
times over the past few release cycles, and "when we get built-in
replication" has always been one of the more popular answers. If HS+SR
aren't enough to justify a major version bump, I'm not sure what would be.

The other bit of rationale for this is that HS+SR are likely to induce a
certain amount of, um, instability. Labeling the release with a dot-oh
version number will help to set people's expectations about that. For
comparison's sake, one of the main reasons for calling 8.0 8.0 was the
native Windows port, and it certainly took a while for that to settle
down.

regards, tom lane

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-Oracle-Sun-If-MySQL-fails-theres-always-PostgreSQL/1264109388 ?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net

On Friday 22. January 2010 01.22.09 Tom Lane wrote:

"Larry Rosenman" <ler@lerctr.org> 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 hit the
tree, the release number would go to 9.0.

Yeah. The question of "when do we call it 9.0" has come up multiple
times over the past few release cycles, and "when we get built-in
replication" has always been one of the more popular answers. If HS+SR
aren't enough to justify a major version bump, I'm not sure what would be.

The other bit of rationale for this is that HS+SR are likely to induce a
certain amount of, um, instability. Labeling the release with a dot-oh
version number will help to set people's expectations about that. For
comparison's sake, one of the main reasons for calling 8.0 8.0 was the
native Windows port, and it certainly took a while for that to settle
down.

Thank you for the enlightening reply.

--
Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak@officenet.no>
Senior Software Developer / CTO
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
OfficeNet AS | The most difficult thing in the world is to |
Rosenholmveien 25 | know how to do a thing and to watch |
1414 Trollåsen | somebody else doing it wrong, without |
NORWAY | comment. |
| |
Tlf: +47 24 15 38 90 | |
Fax: +47 24 15 38 91 | |
Mobile: +47 909 56 963 | |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

-----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. Advocacy matters. Please take a look in
the archives on why this is so before making such a blanket
statement.

If it were called WeGrindUpTheBonesOfSmallChildrenSQL, maybe a
change would be worth considering.

Actually, that would be an improvement, because at least that's
intuitively pronounceable, if a bit long. :)

As it is, I submit that the product name is not on in the top
10,000 things we should be worried about fixing

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-technical people how to
pronounce it? Or sheepishly explained why we have such a lame,
geeky sounding portmanteau? Or assured people that saying "Postgres"
is perfectly fine, and that everyone says it that way anyway?

, even if there were a consensus that it were a good idea
(which there isn't)

I beg to differ, the change has very wide support, including among
members of -core. Please read the archives.

and even if -core had not already made a decision on this point (which
they have).

They punted, but there is no reason we can't revisit the topic. They
are certainly allowed to change their minds. :)

What I think we SHOULD be worrying about right now is getting 9.0
out the door, and I am 100% opposed to letting ourselves getting
sucked into this or any other discussion which is likely to
make that take longer than it likely already will.

What makes you think this is all a zero-sum game? You are free not to
get "sucked into this discussion", but remember that this is a
volunteer project, consisting of people with many and varied skills.
There are a small handful of people who are responsible for getting 9.0
out the door. There are thousands of other people who are working on
other Postgres-related things, including, at times, advocacy.

I'll move this over to -advocacy where it belongs, along with some
more concrete discussion of how we would make the name change,
when and if it happens.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001220952
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAktZu6AACgkQvJuQZxSWSshZKACfWaOxQh9mRvhI0VvFfTRaQ48T
C3sAn343Nanez3hXI+t1f+xl0YAIMcX3
=lETk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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-technical people how to
pronounce it? Or sheepishly explained why we have such a lame,
geeky sounding portmanteau? Or assured people that saying "Postgres"
is perfectly fine, and that everyone says it that way anyway?

I do not read -advocacy, so I probably missed the "important" discussion
on this subject...

I cannot see how the current name is a "top" problem in any priority
scheme I care about. I like the current name, and the *infrequent* time
the question comes up, it gives me the opportunity to summarize the
history of PostgreSQL, and show people how PostgreSQL is a mature
product that has earned a place in software history.

How this could be a problem? I don't understand. I do not believe people
would choose or not choose a product based on whether they happen to
pronounce it correctly from the start.

Most importantly, changing the name back to "Postgres" does not actually
make the product better in any material way, nor does it improve
understanding of what the product does. Having "SQL" in the name, makes
it clear what the product is. We use Atlassian products, and one of the
first complaints we get is that people don't implicitly know what
products like "Bamboo", "Confluence", "Crucible", "FishEye", or "JIRA"
do. They cannot map the products in their head because they have no
context. 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
hugely more valuable.

I don't want to open the discussion, because I like things the way they
are, and think the PostgreSQL developers are doing an excellent job on
the high priority items. PostgreSQL is really one of the greatest open
source projects out there. I love it!

I just can't see a statement like "our name is one of our *top*
problems" go by uncontested. It is false in every way I can think of
considering it. Perhaps *some* people have an issue with it. Perhaps
these people are enough to pressure a change against the rest who care
more about performance, reliability, and features, than a name. But,
ultimately, the people working on the performance, reliability, and
features, are the people that are making PostgreSQL the success that it
is today. The name will not and should not increase adoption. Well, at
least in my not so humble opinion.

Back to the exciting live standby features and such please! I'm very
much looking forward to seeing them in a release. *These* features, I
can "sell" from an advocacy perspective. :-)

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke<mark@mielke.cc>

2010/1/23 Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>:

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 hugely more valuable.

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 "uninformed masses" on the planet.

Cheers,
BJ

* Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> [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 "uninformed masses" on the planet.

I can't speak for Mark, but the "uniformed masses" I interact with tend
to be the guys looking for (and authorizing) solutions in small-medium
business segment... And Microsoft has done the "education" for us and
automatically associated this unknown "SQL" with "a big database"...
So despite that they have no idea what "SQL" actually means, or where it
came from, it's got the desired association.

So, my neck of the woods ain't necessarily yours, but...

--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan@highrise.ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.

On 01/22/2010 10:57 AM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:

* Brendan Jurd<direvus@gmail.com> [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 "uninformed masses" on the planet.

I can't speak for Mark, but the "uniformed masses" I interact with tend
to be the guys looking for (and authorizing) solutions in small-medium
business segment... And Microsoft has done the "education" for us and
automatically associated this unknown "SQL" with "a big database"...
So despite that they have no idea what "SQL" actually means, or where it
came from, it's got the desired association.

So, my neck of the woods ain't necessarily yours, but...

Exactly. People know where SQL fits in the product map. They probably do
NOT know what it stands for, but they don't really care. They pay
professional technical people to understand the details.

How many people know what SONAR, RADAR, or SCUBA stand for? This doesn't
seem to stop them from being able to use the word effectively.

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 is a Postgres? :-)

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke<mark@mielke.cc>

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 is a Postgres? :-)

Something that comes after black, but before white.

David

"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> 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 to increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-)

Something that comes after black, but before white.

Yeah. As best I can tell, most newbies think that PostgreSQL means
Postgre-SQL --- they're not too sure what "Postgre" is, but they guess
it must be the specific name of the product. And that annoys those of
us who would rather they pronounced it "Postgres". But in terms of
recognizability of the product it's not a liability. The business about
pronunciation is a red herring. 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?

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> 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 to increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-)

Something that comes after black, but before white.

Yeah. As best I can tell, most newbies think that PostgreSQL means
Postgre-SQL --- they're not too sure what "Postgre" is, but they guess
it must be the specific name of the product. And that annoys those of
us who would rather they pronounced it "Postgres". But in terms of
recognizability of the product it's not a liability. The business about
pronunciation is a red herring. It's just as unclear whether MySQL is

My personal experience has shown that people not familiar with the project can't
remember it's name (even 10 minutes after I said it). It doesn't really roll
off your tongue, unless you count tree nodes in your sleep. This "may" have an
affect on the project's reach.

I am not really advocating a name change, but if a different name makes
postgresql more popular, however silly that may seem, then I am all for it.
This is a difficult marketing decision.

--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/

2010/1/23 Andrew Chernow <ac@esilo.com>:

Tom Lane wrote:

"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> 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 to
increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-)

Something that comes after black, but before white.

Yeah.  As best I can tell, most newbies think that PostgreSQL means
Postgre-SQL --- they're not too sure what "Postgre" is, but they guess
it must be the specific name of the product.  And that annoys those of
us who would rather they pronounced it "Postgres".  But in terms of
recognizability of the product it's not a liability.  The business about
pronunciation is a red herring.  It's just as unclear whether MySQL is

My personal experience has shown that people not familiar with the project
can't remember it's name (even 10 minutes after I said it).  It doesn't
really roll off your tongue, unless you count tree nodes in your sleep.
 This "may" have an affect on the project's reach.

I am not really advocating a name change, but if a different name makes
postgresql more popular, however silly that may seem, then I am all for it.
This is a difficult marketing decision.

I am not sure so different name makes postgresql more popular - it is
marketing for short-live products. If I can speak some: for Czech
language - the pronunciation of PostgreSQL in Czech isn't any problem.
PostgreSQL is mark with very good reputation - and some pople will go
from Oracle or MySQL, I'll have a better job then to explain so
Postgres is PostgreSQL.

so for me -1

Pavel

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 should be yellow, and with flat roof...

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 and is pronounced like that. People generally
pronounced it "my" though so they just made that the official
pronounciation -- but they still don't approve of "my-sequel".

--
greg

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 approve of "my-sequel".

We could go with "PrySQL," as in you can pry it from my cold dead fingers. Or if you're Finnish, you can think of it as coming before SQL.

Or maybe "TrySQL", to encourage you to try it and because you can make tress out of it. It's greener, too.

Or perhaps OMGWTFSQL. No, wait, sorry, that's what I say when I'm working with MySQL.

How about "PugSQL"? It's kind of butch, keeps the "pg" part, and we could have a dog logo.

Or maybe we can determine that geeks are completely useless at branding and not touch this issue with a 10m pole.

So, 10mPoleSQL it is. Or maybe KillThisFuckingThreadSQL. Rather suggestive, don't you think?

Best,

David

David E. Wheeler �rta:

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 approve of "my-sequel".

We could go with "PrySQL," as in you can pry it from my cold dead fingers. Or if you're Finnish, you can think of it as coming before SQL.

Or maybe "TrySQL", to encourage you to try it and because you can make tress out of it. It's greener, too.

Or perhaps OMGWTFSQL. No, wait, sorry, that's what I say when I'm working with MySQL.

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. :-)

Or maybe we can determine that geeks are completely useless at branding and not touch this issue with a 10m pole.

So, 10mPoleSQL it is. Or maybe KillThisFuckingThreadSQL. Rather suggestive, don't you think?

Best,

David

--
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics

----------------------------------
Zolt�n B�sz�rm�nyi
Cybertec Sch�nig & Sch�nig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/

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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Midsummer_Night&#39;s_Dream#Characters&gt;

cheers

andrew

On Friday 22 January 2010 23:44:11 Tom Lane wrote:

"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> 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 to
increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-)

Something that comes after black, but before white.

Yeah. As best I can tell, most newbies think that PostgreSQL means
Postgre-SQL --- they're not too sure what "Postgre" is, but they guess
it must be the specific name of the product. And that annoys those of
us who would rather they pronounced it "Postgres". But in terms of
recognizability of the product it's not a liability.

Well, it clearly is a liability to have your product name be confused in 3 or
4 different ways. I don't think it's impossible for people to not connect the
dots that someone talking about "postgrey" is talking about the same thing as
someone talking about "postgres-sequel".

The business about
pronunciation is a red herring. 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?

The difference is that that product name is still easily searchable. Looking
for a job? type in mysql. trying to find talent? mysql. looking for product
support? mysql. need training? mysql. Every one of these things (and many
more) is made harder by the constant confusion of our product name.

We're currently looking to hire new dba's, and we have to adjust search
information to account for the potential use of postgres or postgresql as a
skill (we're currently on the fence philosophically about hiring someone who
calls it postgre). But we're lucky, because we know enough to try to account
for these things. Consider someone new to Postgres looking for a job. Go to
monster.com and search on postgre, postgres, or postgresql and you will get a
different list of jobs for each keyword.

<digs a little> 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 because they get sidetracked trying to find out more about postgre?

You once said "Arguably, the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of
reverting to plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever
made." I think I would have to agree, and I can't see this issue ever going
away as long as we stick with PostgreSQL. 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.

--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com

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 please get on with actually making a better product? Raising this
issue again is simply an unnecessary distraction.

cheers

andrew

2010/1/23 Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>:

<digs a little> 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 because they get sidetracked trying to find out more about postgre?

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 4,590 1.10%
5. postgresql tutorial 2,408 0.58%
6. pg_dump 1,755 0.42%
7. psql 1,360 0.33%
8. postgresql odbc 1,022 0.24%
9. postgre sql 964 0.23%
10. pg_restore 871 0.21%

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

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 4,590 1.10%
5. postgresql tutorial 2,408 0.58%
6. pg_dump 1,755 0.42%
7. psql 1,360 0.33%
8. postgresql odbc 1,022 0.24%
9. postgre sql 964 0.23%
10. pg_restore 871 0.21%

Huh. No pgsql. Interesting.

David

2010/1/23 David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com>:

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     4,590   1.10%
5.    postgresql tutorial     2,408   0.58%
6.    pg_dump                 1,755   0.42%
7.    psql                    1,360   0.33%
8.    postgresql odbc         1,022   0.24%
9.    postgre sql             964     0.23%
10.   pg_restore              871     0.21%

Huh. No pgsql. Interesting.

pgsql shows up in position 31 with 0.12%.

Beaten even by "copy" with 0.15%.

Wel also have
17. postgress 0.16%
30. postgressql 0.12%
40. postg 0.10%
70. postgr 0.07%

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

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 me."

Wow Andrew, that's kind of a dick thing to say. This really isn't about
agreeing with me except maybe that I've watched the issue for years and I
think I have come to the most reasonable conclusion. If there is a more
reasonable conclusion, I'm happy to switch to that, but of course we'd be back
to people agreeing with me...

Sorry, that is quite clearly not going to happen.

People said that about win32 and people said that about git; the former has
happened, the latter hasn't, but I suspect it will. Given the problems with
the name PostgreSQL aren't just going to magically disappear, eventually I
believe a name change will be made (though I've no doubt people will try to
dig themselves in deeper in opposition to it in the mean time).

Can we please get on with actually making a better product? Raising this
issue again is simply an unnecessary distraction.

A strong and growing community is arguably the most important feature of any
software project; to that extent this *is* the work of making a better
product.

--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com

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 if everyone agrees with me."

Wow Andrew, that's kind of a dick thing to say. This really isn't about
agreeing with me except maybe that I've watched the issue for years and I
think I have come to the most reasonable conclusion. If there is a more
reasonable conclusion, I'm happy to switch to that, but of course we'd be back
to people agreeing with me...

I'm sorry if I offended you, it seems to be my week for that. But that's
how what you said came across to me.

I don't actually have a horse in this race, I can live with either name.
But there was a discussion on it not long ago (in which I did not take
part) and a decision was made. I think bringing it up again now is
unfortunate, and a serious distraction. And clearly there are reasonable
counter-arguments to your position, as evidenced by this most recent
discussion.

I honestly do not believe that the future of the project depends on the
outcome of this issue to any significant extent.

cheers

andrew

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 its
name I'd be more than annoyed if the project name were changed under us.

cheers

andrew