Re: 10.0
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>,
David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>,
David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: 2016-06-18T04:20:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 06/17/2016 10:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> Ugliness is a highly subjective qualifier. OTOH, Backwards >> compatibility, at least when the checks are properly written :-), is a >> very objective benefit. > > This is the argument that made us kept the PostgreSQL name instead of > renaming back to Postgres. I'm not a fan of it. > Well ... no. We kept the PostgreSQL name for three reasons. Back in 2005, which was the last time we could have reasonably changed it, nobody had the time/energy to do all of the search-and-replace-and-contact-every-packager required. The folks who were most enthusiastic about the change wanted someone else to do the work. Plus, our Japanese community, which was like 40% of our worldwide community at the time, was opposed to the change. The third reason is that we have a registered trademark on "PostgreSQL", but "postgres" is public domain. -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own)