Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>
Date: 2012-02-28T16:02:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Could we name this "postgresql_fdw" instead? We already have several
>> ${productname}_fdw out there, and I don't want to get in the business of
>> having to guess variant spellings.

> If you don't like variant spellings, having anything to do with
> PostgreSQL, aka Postgres, and usually discussed on the pgsql-* mailing
> lists, is probably a bad idea.

[ snicker ]  But still, Peter has a point: pgsql is not a name for the
product, it's at best an abbreviation.  We aren't calling the other
thing orcl_fdw or ora_fdw.

I think either postgres_fdw or postgresql_fdw would be fine.

			regards, tom lane