On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 13:22 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I actually like PGXN. PGXN is marketable. Yeah that may not be what > > -hackers are after but if I stand up in front of a Fortune 500 company > > and say, "We have PGXN" it sounds a heck of a lot better that PGAN. > > I think the attraction of PGAN is that people have some hope of guessing > what it means (CPAN/PGAN), and because C and G look similar, there is > even more an association, e.g. swap C and P, change C to G, and viola. > > The attraction of PGXN is that it looks like PGXS.
Again, to hackers :). I am looking at this differently. If I stand up and say, "PostgreSQL has PGXN, the PostgreSQL Extension Network" Versus "PostgreSQL has PGAN, P can that Can, I am Pee gannning." What? Anyway, a name is a name. We are PostgreSQL after all. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
